11Likes
January 21st, 2013, 06:59 PM
I was recently looking into IQ studies and came upon Langan, who currently works as a bouncer. I tried to understand CTMU, though after reading only the introduction I was overwhelmed by his sesquipedalian words that appeared as jargon to me. Does anyone else have an opinion on Langan or his CTMU theory?
20 minutes worth of "research" tells me he is a very clever boy and socially maladjusted.
If he had walked the blue collar road of mechanics and engineering he could have been very useful.
As a philosopher it is hard to separate the brilliance from the sociopathic B.S.
A true genius but unreliable.
Oh, what a world, what a world.
shlunka,
His ideas were briefly discussed in this forum about 15 months ago. The link is shown below. His ideas seem to be spiritual, theistic, and philosophical, rather than related to physics. He calls it a Theory of Everything, but I think he misuses the word theory in that his writings and ideas instead have no math and seemingly cannot be derived from any scientific methods or objective observations of others.I was recently looking into IQ studies and came upon Langan, who currently works as a bouncer. I tried to understand CTMU, though after reading only the introduction I was overwhelmed by his sesquipedalian words that appeared as jargon to me. Does anyone else have an opinion on Langan or his CTMU theory?
Chris Langan's CTMU
Last edited by forrest noble; January 24th, 2013 at 03:40 PM.
Thank you.Originally Posted by forrest noble
Yeah, I thought it was going to be something really new, coming from a supreme genius and all, but I was really disappointed.
Don't you think you come off as condescending when you judge a paper you haven't entirely read and didn't bother to reply to the poster that was defending it?
I did read bits of the pdf linked to in that thread and the first post, which was Langan's own words. I am not obliged to read every paper somebody decides to write and it is mostly incumbent on the one pushing the idea to present it here. Neither Langan's own words in that OP, nor those of the OP himself nor the bits I read from the paper were very convincing and I was disappointed after only a few posts. It was basically the same type of thing I have seen many times where, like I noted in the thread, someone started out with a preconception and then proceeded to build a web of connections (filled with non sequiturs, hand waving and gobbledygook in this case) around it in order to try and justify that belief. I should at least have responded to the last post, you're right. Not sure why I didn't.Don't you think you come off as condescending when you judge a paper you haven't entirely read and didn't bother to reply to the poster that was defending it?
Do you find merit in Langan's musings?
I believe that some of Langan's ideas are worthy of consideration, although I disagree with him in a few of his writings. By the way, a person is not a genius because they have a high level of intelligence; genius is always the result of a special intrisinic characteristic of a person (e.g., zeal, persistence, etc.). However, in order to apply these characteristics into producing something worthy of calling its producer a"genius" that person requires the intelligence to understand the background knowledge first. Therefore, all geniuses have a high level of intelligence, but not all people of high intelligence are geniuses.
The biggest problem I found was with his leap that the universe itself is conscious and then that this consciousness should be god. One could say it is aware of itself in a way through us, but that is not what he means. He obfuscates this leap with gobbledygook.
I get your point about genius. It reminds me of a quote at the bottom of his Wiki page: "Gladwell's profile of Langan mainly portrayed him as an example of an individual who failed to realize his potential in part because of poor social skills resulting from, in Gladwell's speculation, being raised in poverty."
From what I understand of Langan's writings, his argument for the existence of God is as follows:
1. Reality is a self-contained set that consists of all that which is real.
2. It is possible to model all that which exists within reality.
3. The mind thatt models the entirety of reality is a super-intellect.
4. God is a super-intellect.
5. If the exact correspondence between mind and reality can be approached via a convergent analytic-synthetic propositional limit, then the limit exists, even though a contingent mind within reality can only approach the limit.
6. If the limit exists, than reality is a discription.
7. Because reality is isomorphic, than that description has a describer.
8. The describer is a super-intellect.
9. God is the super-intellect.
10. Therefore, God exists.
The burden of proof is demonstrating that proposition 5 is true; that is to say that the limit converges. In doing so, Langan would have effectively demonstrated that reality is a mind, specifically the mind of God. However, Langan has yet to prove that the limit converges, and doesn't consider the implications were the limit to diverge. Despite this, Langan continues to build onto his theory, ignoring for now the matter of proving that the limit converges.
I didn't mean to say that Langan is not necessarily a genius (I'm not sure), but only to say that whether one is a genius or not is not a matter of his or her level of intelligence.
Lewis Terman's study of 1,528 gifted individuals with IQs of at least 140 (the average IQ was 151) found that the majority of them earned higher incomes, were taller on average, healthier, more physically developed, and more socially adept than the general population. They also held positions of high prestige, such as corporate executives, physicians, dentists, or college professors.
However, there were two mathematical prodiges with IQs falling a few points short of the necessary requirement of a minimum IQ of 140. Although Terman was interested in these subjects, as a good scientist, he had to exclude them from his research. Both of these individuals would go on to become nobel laureates in physics and have wikipedia biographies, while none of Terman's 1,500+ subjects achieved such an accomplishment.
As you can see, genius is never the result of the level of g (which stands for general intelligence, and is what IQ tests attempt to measure), but the result of that individual's special characteristics along with a g threshold that is sufficient to allow the individual the background knowledge to understand the subject matter he or she is studying. The g threshold necessary for the potential of genius to exist is probably somewhere between 1.5 to 2.0 sigma (124 to 132 on the Stanford-Binet) above the mean.
Is that a (rather obfuscated) version of the ontological argument?
Ontology is a branch of metaphysics concerned with the study of being or existence. Therefore, any argument for the existence of an entity is ontological. However, I assume that by "ontological argument" you are specifically referring to the family of arguments that attempt to prove God's existence via a premise definition and a necessary derivation (i.e., God is X,... X is necessary, therefore God exists). In that case, yes, Langan's argument is a version of an ontological argument, specifically St. Anselm of Canterbury's (1033-1109 A.D.).
Thanks. That was exactly what I was thinking of (I heard a radio program about it the other day). I'll disappear again now, as that has exhausted my knowledge and understanding of the subject.
I see some merit in his writings and conclusions but think many of his conclusions in his writings are logically faulty.From what I understand of Langan's writings, his argument for the existence of God is as follows:
1. Reality is a self-contained set that consists of all that which is real.
2. It is possible to model all that which exists within reality.
3. The mind thatt models the entirety of reality is a super-intellect.
4. God is a super-intellect.
5. If the exact correspondence between mind and reality can be approached via a convergent analytic-synthetic propositional limit, then the limit exists, even though a contingent mind within reality can only approach the limit.
6. If the limit exists, than reality is a discription.
7. Because reality is isomorphic, than that description has a describer.
8. The describer is a super-intellect.
9. God is the super-intellect.
10. Therefore, God exists.
The burden of proof is demonstrating that proposition 5 is true; that is to say that the limit converges. In doing so, Langan would have effectively demonstrated that reality is a mind, specifically the mind of God. However, Langan has yet to prove that the limit converges, and doesn't consider the implications were the limit to diverge. Despite this, Langan continues to build onto his theory, ignoring for now the matter of proving that the limit converges.
I didn't mean to say that Langan is not necessarily a genius (I'm not sure), but only to say that whether one is a genius or not is not a matter of his or her level of intelligence.
Lewis Terman's study of 1,528 gifted individuals with IQs of at least 140 (the average IQ was 151) found that the majority of them earned higher incomes, were taller on average, healthier, more physically developed, and more socially adept than the general population. They also held positions of high prestige, such as corporate executives, physicians, dentists, or college professors.
However, there were two mathematical prodiges with IQs falling a few points short of the necessary requirement of a minimum IQ of 140. Although Terman was interested in these subjects, as a good scientist, he had to exclude them from his research. Both of these individuals would go on to become nobel laureates in physics and have wikipedia biographies, while none of Terman's 1,500+ subjects achieved such an accomplishment.
As you can see, genius is never the result of the level of g (which stands for general intelligence, and is what IQ tests attempt to measure), but the result of that individual's special characteristics along with a g threshold that is sufficient to allow the individual the background knowledge to understand the subject matter he or she is studying. The g threshold necessary for the potential of genius to exist is probably somewhere between 1.5 to 2.0 sigma (124 to 132 on the Stanford-Binet) above the mean.
In your numberings 1 through 10 above, if this is a good summary then there is much missing concerning logic. From my readings I don't think I could give a more appealing summary. Number #1 is simply a definition. #2 is not unreasonable but I see no logic to back it up. For #3 I see no certain logic at all, and in fact I expect it is totally wrong. #4 is simply an un-based statement or belief. #5 is an "if" statement that does not seem to logically follow from the premise. #6, I agree that reality might best be defined as just a description, but that is simply philosophy. #7 seems to involve logic but I believe two assumptions are involved. #8 follows in logic based upon the validity of his other statements. #9 is simply a belief. #10 might logically follow if all the other statements, assumptions, and premises were valid.
Theistic writings do not interest me at all but I do like the fact that he makes an effort to be logical, unlike many real theories in physics today which seemingly are even less supported by verbal logic than this theistic model.
His writings might have appeal for some in the educated religious sector.
A better description of Langan's arguments for the existence of God can be found at http://web.archive.org/web/200412091...haelLangan.htm.
What ellatha has written should not be taken as representative.
For more information on Langan's work, check out the first hour of this interview: Dec 28 2012 - Mind, Reality & Open Lines - YouTube.
Statements one, three, and four are all definitions. In other words, we are defining a super-intellect as a mind that perfectly models reality, and we are defining god as a super-intellect, thus invalidating your later claims of no logic in backing them up.
Indeed, the proof is not complete until one demonstrates that the limit converges (statement 5, which is interrelated with statement 2). Langan has not claimed to prove the existence of god, but put the argument into valid mathematical and philosophical terms from which to proceed.
Yes, Langan's writings are interdisciplinary and include philosophy among other subjects. The remaining statements are all logically valid from statements one, three, and four (which, again are definitions and indisputable).
Langan's definition of god is not that of a conventional personal god, but of a holistic god (a form of pantheism). By the way, I'm a Christian and I find Langan's writings interesting.
EDIT: Ergonotimor, thank you for replying to the thread. I apologize if I misrepresented Langan, and I will check out those links.
Last edited by ellatha; January 24th, 2013 at 08:39 PM.
With reference to posting #10Statements one, three, and four are all definitions. In other words, we are defining a super-intellect as a mind that perfectly models reality, and we are defining god as a super-intellect, thus invalidating your later claims of no logic in backing them up.
We are getting into semantics now. These are my intended definitions of these words.
Define "Definition:" An exact statement or description of the nature, scope, or meaning of something.
Define "Statement:" a single declaration or remark ; an assertion or report of facts or opinion.
Number one is a definition. Number two is a statement and assertion of fact (whether valid or not). Number three is a statement based upon belief or assumption. Number four is a statement without justification. Number five is a statement based upon possibilities. Number six is a statement based upon a conclusions (whether valid or not). Number seven is a statement based upon a premise. Number eight is a statement based upon assumptions. Number nine is a statement based upon assumptions. And 10 is a statement asserting a logical conclusion.
Number 1 is the only definition I see. Of course it is supposed to be an ontological argument, even the best of which I think involve a number of assumptions, indefensible logic, or semantic problems of statements by others ontological arguments such as "god is good," but without going into what "good" means in the context of the logic.
We are getting into semantics now.
Define "Definition:" An exact statement or description of the nature, scope, or meaning of something.
(your statement)(your statement)I mentioned later that the argument is not complete without proving statement 5 (which is interrelated with statement 2). Langan has not claimed to prove the existence of god, but put the argument into valid mathematical and philosophical terms from which to proceed. Indeed, the proof is not complete until one demonstrates that the limit converges.They are interdisciplinary but I see little physics involved. I disagree that 2,3, and 4 are indisputable definitions. They instead fit the definition of a statement(s).Yes, Langan's writings are interdisciplinary and include philosophy among other subjects. The remaining statements are all logically valid from statements one, three, and four (which, again are definitions and indisputable
His argument is ontological but even the best of such arguments that I have read, fail in the certainty of their logic, make statements with improper justification, make assumptions, and many have definition problems such a "god is good" without giving a definition of good in their context which would be needed for unambiguous logic.
Last edited by forrest noble; January 30th, 2013 at 09:37 PM.
In philosophy, one conceptualizes his or her own definitions. You cannot merely look up the term in a standard dictionary and attempt to invalidate the philosopher's useage of it, because words are arbitrary labels that represent meanings. This is why one of the greatest Western philosophers, Gottfried Wilhelm von Leibniz, frequently wrote pages solely giving the definition of words. For example, the following: Leibniz: Definitions
We have only been discussing a single aspect of Langan's CTMU. If you'd like to read the full paper, it can be found here: Cognitive-Theoretic Model of the Universe
Yes, I see the necessity of anyone using words beyond their normal usage, to provide definitions for their usage. I see merit to Longran's writings but his ideas concerning theism are particularly unappealing to me. I agree with many of his ideas and arguments about the problems with mainstream science and physics today, and the failure possibilities inherent in present scientific methods. He seems to successfully address what I think are fundamental problems with the development and refinement of major theories today concerning their logic, or lack thereof.In philosophy, one conceptualizes his or her own definitions. You cannot merely look up the term in a standard dictionary and attempt to invalidate the philosopher's useage of it, because words are arbitrary labels that represent meanings. This is why one of the greatest Western philosophers, Gottfried Wilhelm von Leibniz, frequently wrote pages solely giving the definition of words alone. For example, the following: Leibniz: Definitions
We have only been discussing a single aspect of Langan's CTMU. If you'd like to read the full paper, it can be found here: Cognitive-Theoretic Model of the Universe
Last edited by forrest noble; January 24th, 2013 at 11:34 PM.
I'd like to introduce you to:
Spinoza's proof of god (or practically everything)
In essence just determinism and causality. And Spinoza's proof requires a lot less axioms.
And that is just the thing, with a set of axioms you can basically proof everything. But with any (non singular) set of axioms there lies a contradiction, due to the incompleteness theorem.
Might I suggest you attain a simple single axiom: 'What I see(observe) is truth'
Sure you might live in a matrix, but it is after all an axiom. Now that axiom, that is physics. And guess what, it works best. As ironically, it is the only thing we can ever know.
And guys, stop fussing about IQ's.
Actually Spinoza's proof is both longer and requires more axioms. Three of the first four statements in the syllogism I provided are merely definitions, and thus it could be regarded as a singular axiom proof, and indeed no axioms (except for the laws of thought) were the limit proven to converge. There is no good reason to use Cartesian skepticism, as the difference in observational manipulation is exactly what is in incurred the dream state as opposed to the wake state.
No, I mean look at them. Spinoza's makes 3 definitions and 3 axioms that relate those definitions. The rest is all logics.
Now in the quoted model, first of all, in 4,9 and 10 it mentions and not defines 'God'. With that argument 9 is completely useless. In 9 there is stated that there is only 1 super-intellect, this is an assumption upon 3, where there was still 'a' super intellect. And from what I know, the god implied 'God' is singular (hence Monotheism).
1) can be rewritten as: 1. All that which is real is in a self contained set. No need to name reality, as it isn't defined anyways.
2) is an assumption upon a unmentioned definition of 'modeling'
3) following the unmentioned definition of modeling now follows a mind, this should be incorporated inside the definition of modeling. Also this is the axiom between a super intellect and the unmentioned definitions.
4 and 9 contradict and can only be achieved via another axiom in the reasoning. Hence 4 and 9 can be replaced by a single axiom.
5) God there is many assumptions in here: "exact correspondence", "mind", "reality".
Then there is introduced: 'convergent analytic-synthetic propositional limit", Okay, so there is proposed that a model must exist that contains both approaches. Another Axiom.
"contigent is another unmentioned definition, that apparently has an axiomatic relationship with not being able to find the limit of the model, which must exist! (as has been earlier axiomated)
6) This is a crucial axiom 1 it say that if the limit exists, reality is a description. This implies 2 things one, that reality is a description of the limit, and that most importantly since reality is contained within the set, it automatically implies that the limit is ALWAYS inside the set.
The second thing it implies is that the limit is not necessarily unique.
7) Okay, that can be included in the characterisation of the definition of the set. No added step, axiom of definition.
But here is the thing from just 6), 5), 4) and 1)
we can logically deduce that a mind inside the reality cannot model it. Hence from the other axioms, a super-intellect can therefore only be excluded from the set.
However God is a super-intellect, and our set is "all that which is real"
In other words, the proof didn't just prove God existed (with more definitions and axioms the Spinoza). It proved that in doing so God intrinsically cannot be REAL!
You see, this is the problem with logics, if you are good at it (with virtue of Wim Veldman I must admit). You can easily see bad proof. (there is no flaw in my reasoning, so I suggest you study Spinoza's proof a little better, at least he doesn't disprove God to be real)
Kerling,
It's painfully obvious that you didn't read that post, but instead scanned for superficial inconsistencies, which would explain the weak and even petty points you bring up. Had you bothered to read the full post, you would have noticed the immediate paragraph following the argument where I stated that the burden of proof is demonstrating statement 5, which would complete the argument.
It's also obvious that you didn't read the paragraph immediately following the aforementioned paragraph, where I wrote that the argument would demonstrate that reality is the mind of god, i.e., all that which is real is the mind of god, eliminating your "proving god is unreal" statement altogether.
When one actually reads an argument and makes the attempt of infering where the ideas are coming from, they gain a full comprehension and appreciation for what is being said. The fact that you scan for isolated, local inconsistences makes you miss the global consistency and reasoning of the argument.
For example, I could just a well make the same arguments you did with the following argument:
1. If mouse A seeks out cheese it wil seek out the cheese on the mouse trap.
2. If the mouse seeks out the cheese on the mouse trap, the mouse trap will be set off.
3. If the mouse trap is set off, the mouse will be caught by the mouse trap.
4. If the mouse is caught by the mouse trap, it will be killed.
5. If the mouse is killed by the mouse trap, the mouse trap is effective.
6. Therefore, mousetraps are effective.
If one follows your line of reasoning, the analysis would look something like this: Oh, but there are 5 axioms made here. Each point assumes one thing without assuming the other. That would make the argument so inconsistent and unlikely that it's not worth seeking further. And yet, miraculously it would seem, that thousands of mice are killed everyday via mouse traps.
Of course, in scanning an argument you miss out on the following, very important principle of cohesion among the statements:
Letbe axiom 1, than if where
In other words, demonstrating statement 1 would set off a chain of logical validities that would also prove statements 2, 3, and 4. Also, mathematical logic is no excuse for not reading the argument yourself and making an attempt at understanding the reasoning of the argument. Logic is a powerful tool that has a wide variety of applications in philosophy and mathematics, but if one is not careful in how they interpret it they will get some very bizzare implications. I've personally seen, on several occasions, so-called mathematical logicians believe they've "disproven" an argument because their symbolism didn't prove that "predicate A demonstrated derivation B" or something of the sort, ignoring altogether what the person making the argument was saying.
This would probably be a good time to provide the definitions Langan's argument refers to, although it would probably be unnecessary had you made an effort to understand the argument.
1. Reality all that which is real (premise).
2. Reality the mind of god (derivation).
3. Theory a description of an aspect of reality.
4. Theory of everything a description of the entirety of reality.
5. Model a mathematical description of reality.
I also don't appreciate the apparent arrogance you've demonstrated in posting in this thread; why the need to make such a statement as "quit fuzzing about IQ" and other such comments when you haven't shown any significant competence in the subject matter that you're discussing?
Moderator Note:
Posting is taking on a personal tone in this thread. Let's drop that. I'm not concerned with who started it, or whether some posts were misinterpreted as to intent, I'm simply asking you all to be civil.
Please do not further disrupt this thread with comments about this note. If you object to it please pm me, or report the post, or contact an admin.
No, I didn't read the complete post no. For the obvious reason, that from your logical steps I can proof the fallacy. That means, I do not seek to question your definitions (I kept them as 'unmentioned'. But instead I use the 10) steps that you used to show that they logically imply god is not real. Since I only use your logical steps, I need not concern about the truth or validity of your definitions. I can do with your steps alone. That is the whole power of Logic. And that is why we do it.
For your toy model:
And Let me use abbreviations: Mouse A = M_A, Cheese = C, Mousetrap = MT
Also the logical equation == meaning boolean truth = T or false = F (not even regarding multi-value or reductio ad absurdum, just good old classical logic)
1. If mouse A seeks out cheese it wil seek out the cheese on the mouse trap.
M_A AND C -> MT
and that is it, there is no logical derivation in your model just a an axiom why implication M_A leads to implication M_T. It doesn't matter what implications you put in between, as they are all axioms. Just because they seem to make sense to you, doesn't mean they are anything less then axioms.
So now looking at the initial dispute:
Definitions:
A - Reality all that which is real (premise)
B - Theory a description of an aspect of reality
C - Theory of everything a description of the entirety of reality
D - Model a mathematical description of reality
From Definitions A,B,C & D it can immediately be deduced that:
A + B implies Theory is a description of all that is real
A + B + C There exist a single theory to describe the entirety of reality, which needn't be the sum of all theories combined.
D + C The theory of everything is a model.
Denote I did not include your 2. For the same reason that that would be a double definition. I mean if I define that: Vogue is all that is women & Vogue is men. Then I will have no problem proving: All that is women is men.
That is forbidden in logic. And for the matter not really taken serious in science.
So let's see the original statements:
1. Reality is a self-contained set that consists of all that which is real.
This is a bit tricky as reality was defined as being 'all that which is real' It basically states by the definition: 'Reality is a self-contained set that consists of Reality.'
This is a cumbersome way to change the definition of Reality of being a self contained set.
2. It is possible to model all that which exists within reality.
This is again tricky, as our definition of a model, doesn't talk about modeling. I mean I can define a woman, and yet know nothing about 'womaning'. Hence the act of modeling is presumed to be that reality has a model. (denote how the poor definition D defines a model as a description of reality and not a part of said reality)
This makes the statement useless as D defines that a model is a description of reality. It is a repetition of the definition. But presumably that was the entire idea.
3. The mind that models the entirety of reality is a super-intellect.
This is another axiom and 2 more defintions, however this one we can write into logic form, some definition E = mind, and some definition super-intellect = F. Here defintion D actually makes our job easy.
E + D -> E + F
in short, a mind that can model, then that mind is a super intellect.
denote that this DOESN'T imply D -> F!! After all Tree + Water -> Tree + Fruit which isn't that same as Water -> Fruit.
4. God is a super-intellect.
God = G Then this axiom states:
G -> F
Of which naturally can't be stated F -> G (Jimmy is a cyclist, not all cyclists are Jimmy)
5. [If the exact correspondence between mind and reality can be approached via a convergent analytic-synthetic propositional limit], then the limit exists, even though a contingent mind within reality can only approach the limit.
[..] is a giant assumption on a lot of things but boils down on: Limit = L
(E + A -> L + A ) + (L - > L+A)
Followed by yet another axiom that E -> NOT(L)
6. If the limit exists, than reality is a discription. This is wrong as the axiom is cannot be aplied to our defitinion of reality. This means that all that is real is a description. Even so:
L -> A
7. Because reality is isomorphic, than that description has a describer.
Apparently the set is isomorphic, another Axiom. But for now I'll incorporate it in the definition of reality to save on redefining all symbols. Also it is assumed that a describer is some form of mind.
So the next axiom states that the model (description) D -> A + E
8. The describer is a super-intellect.
(D -> A + E) -> F
9. God is the super-intellect.
A redefinition F == G
10. Therefore, God exists.
So this is what needs to be proven, Namely that G -> A
Since nowhere we actually used the definitions of theory we don't use them either.
Firstly we make things simple by replacing all G's with F's which is allowed by 9)
Our prove reduces to F -> A
--------------
Axioms:
(1) E + D -> E + F
(2) G -> F
(3) (E + A -> L + A ) + (L - > L+A)
(4) E -> NOT(L)
(5) L -> A
(7) D -> A + E
(8) (D -> A + E) -> F
And actually your proof of god is already ready. As the derivation of the logical implication step (2) and your redefinition F = G can only both be correct if G is true always.
In essence you didn't need all the other terms you just defined god into existence.
Now for that G -> NOT(A) Or F -> NOT(A)
(4) + (5) make up E -> NOT(A) (which is the fist contradiction of your rather large axiom set)
However with (4) + (5) we can reduce our proof to:
E + F -> NOT(A)
But this was axiomated in (1) !
Hence E+ D -> E + F -> NOT(A) + F == NOT(A) + G.
Quod Erat Demonstrantum.
In other words, God is not part or reality.
Unrelated though, I have a degree in physics and work in another country then I was born in, in a renowned research institute. Also I had 2 courses one Bachelor, and one Master Course by Intuistionistic logicist, Wim Veldman. Who has made several publications on the matter, and has legally seen endowed me with the skill of logics.
Incidentally it ismy opinion is that a High IQ, doesn't necessarily mean that you are better at these things.
Kerling,
I'm quite familiar with mathematical logicians and the arguments they frequently pose. Consider the following argument:
1. The past exists.
2. The past cannot be changed.
3. Our future is another time's past.
4. The aforementioned time cannot change their past.
5. Therefore, we cannot change our future.
Logically, this argument is flawed because:And from that we can derive the following rules:
Now let's look at what this argument says:
It proves axioms 6 and 7, which effectively show that the past and the future share a special form of symmetry. On the other hand, statement 1 in the argument, "the past exists" is flawed, because, if there is a beginning of time T_0, than time did not exist at T_0. In other words, by the logic of mathematical logic, the past and future share a special type of symmetry, but the past also does not exist. This is exactly why I told you to be wary of what your logical formulas claim to be "true" or "false" as wordplay can drastically alter such algorithms. This is not an exercise in trivia; reading the argument in English allows you understand what the arguer means. I'm not making a comment about your competence to solve problems using logic or formulate theorems and prove them, but you need to be careful how you apply that logic and what it's really saying relative to what the person means.
Last edited by ellatha; January 26th, 2013 at 09:41 AM.
His theory is BS. Hes a fraud.
Fraud means he knows his theory is nonsense. Is that what you mean?
Because you say so? Or because you have an actual argument showing that it's so?
And you know this because...?Hes a fraud.
I can't help but find it funny how many people fear IQ tests; honestly, if the idea of assigning a number to your intelligence freighters you that much you need to get over yourself. It's ironic how many of Langan's critics that claim he is egotistical dislike him for their own egotistical reasons.
I know this is going off topic, but this comment struck me as one of those things that is probably generally understood by the population at large, but for which I had somehow missed the email. So, is this really the case. Do you have documentary evidence that many people fear IQ tests? Or is your conclusion based on necessarily restricted personal experience? For the record I love IQ tests, so it never occured to me that people might actively fear them. I thought indifference was the more likely reaction.
It's based on my own experiences with people; of course there are exceptions to the rule. I've seen person X who claims to have an IQ a standard deviation or more above genius level but that IQ tests "don't mean anything" too many times and am thus convinced. One of the members on this forum even said that IQ tests should be banned, not just stopped being used in general.
OK, I'm not clear how either of those reactions constitute demonstration of a fear of IQ tests. They both appear to indicate a belief that they are without value and misleading.
They are lies that try to invalidate the utility of IQ tests because of the person's fear of them. The first statement "person X has IQ Y" is used to make the person appear reliable (after all, a person with a low IQ seems much more unreliable when asked about the reliability of IQ tests than person X as they are more likely to hold a vendetta against them). The second statement "IQ tests are unreliable" is an attempt at discrediting IQ tests.
It's much easier for a person to grow bitter and say "IQ tests don't mean anything" than facing reality. After all, ignorance is bliss.
All I see are a series of assumptions. You use strong words like "lies" and vendetta". Should I guess where you lie on this issue?
The fear of failure or of appearing stupid, is a very common fear in many people. People that do not like school for many different reasons, and those that do not do well on tests in general, may be fearful when they become aware they will be taking an intelligence test.I know this is going off topic, but this comment struck me as one of those things that is probably generally understood by the population at large, but for which I had somehow missed the email. So, is this really the case. Do you have documentary evidence that many people fear IQ tests? Or is your conclusion based on necessarily restricted personal experience? For the record I love IQ tests, so it never occured to me that people might actively fear them. I thought indifference was the more likely reaction.
Others may be fearful of an IQ test when they realize that they may find out that they may not be as "smart" as they thought they were
Last edited by forrest noble; January 30th, 2013 at 03:05 PM.
This was a thread I recently started called "Syntactic operators are reality embedded": http://www.thescienceforum.com/philo...-embedded.html
for the record: I don't fear IQ tests; I do think they are unreliable and potentially misleading; and I do have an a genius level IQ. Does this mean I am lying, deluded coward?
Did I say that you feared IQ tests or that you were a deluded, liar coward? If IQ tests are unreliable than you would not have a "genius level" IQ because the results would be meaningless due to their inability to be replicated. Which test did you take and was it administered by a licensed psychologist?
If you want to believe that 90% of the world has an IQ over 140 be my guest. However, those of us are familiar with statistics know that that isn't the case. On the other hand, if you want to really want to see some strong words, why not look at some of the YouTube comments under Langan's videos.
Last edited by ellatha; January 30th, 2013 at 02:50 PM.
I didn't say anything like that. I am perfectly aware of how statistics work, thanks. I am asking about you seemingly making sweeping generalisations. By strong words I mean you are being emotional here and I am asking what the deal is.
If you want to believe that 90% of the world has an IQ over 140 be my guest. However, those of us are familiar with statistics know that that isn't the case. On the other hand, if you want to really want to see some strong words, why not look at some of the YouTube comments under Langan's videos.
IQ tests are not useless, but their meaning is far from being unambiguous or all encompassing of a person's intelligence.
Can you explain in clear terms what you are trying to get across?
These aren't sweeping generalizations at all; the phenomenon I mentioned is very common on seemingly all message boards. I don't need a scientific source to confirm it, because I've observed and noted it (along with others) for years.
On the contrary, I'm just giving my opinions from the observations I've made over the years. The words may appear subjective, but truth is objective.
I don't know you, but you certainly do come across as one that gets confused very easily. Nothing that I've really said is confusing at all.
Well I am confused. You say I am not a lying, deluded coward, yet I have made identical statements to individuals that you have accused of exactly that. So I do not understand what the difference is. Please clarify. (and for the record Kalster is one of the least confused people I have encountered anywhere. You may want to rethink things.)I do not recall which IQ test I took. It was part of a daylong evaluation by an industrial psychologist as part of management development program. And, yes the psychologist was qualified, experienced and certified.
Let me explain. This isn't the first discussion we've had on IQ. I am trying to find out what your position is on IQ. You have not given it yet.
John made a good point about your personal experiences being necessarily restricted. You make a claim about people fearing IQ tests and lashing out about it as a rule. That is not my experience of it at all and apparently neither is it John's. You use strong emotional words like "lies" and "vendetta", as if you find yourself in constant battles about this issue. Please explain why you are not guilty of confirmation bias.
And there is no need to get snippy. We are just talking here.
I do not know why you keep bringing the subject back to yourself. I am trying my best to be truthful based on my observations over the past few years of posting on these forums. I could just as well say "John Galt the guy that trolled under the username Ophiolite says that his IQ is higher than 99% of the general population?" Of course, we both know that would be a straw man argument, as you could potentially believe that you have a genius level IQ, I do not know.
Also, just because the majority of people that claim to have high IQs are generally lying does not mean all people are. Based on your comments you seem to believe that, because two people say the same thing, those two people are one in the same, which leads me to believe that you do not possess a genius level IQ.
Again, this is just my observation; I cannot "kiss up" and distort the truth because other would prefer for me to do so.
Well you may hold a different opinion, but that will not necessarily change mine. I'd rather trust my primary source discussions with KALSTER as opposed to your secondary source opinions.
Well because I haven't seen the actual results and am left only to take your word on it, I cannot put any weight on your claims. Nor does it matter; again, there are exceptions with everything.
I've already told you my opinion of IQ, it was:
"I didn't mean to say that Langan is not necessarily a genius (I'm not sure), but only to say that whether one is a genius or not is not a matter of his or her level of intelligence.
Lewis Terman's study of 1,528 gifted individuals with IQs of at least 140 (the average IQ was 151) found that the majority of them earned higher incomes, were taller on average, healthier, more physically developed, and more socially adept than the general population. They also held positions of high prestige, such as corporate executives, physicians, dentists, or college professors.
However, there were two mathematical prodiges with IQs falling a few points short of the necessary requirement of a minimum IQ of 140. Although Terman was interested in these subjects, as a good scientist, he had to exclude them from his research. Both of these individuals would go on to become nobel laureates in physics and have wikipedia biographies, while none of Terman's 1,500+ subjects achieved such an accomplishment.
As you can see, genius is never the result of the level of g (which stands for general intelligence, and is what IQ tests attempt to measure), but the result of that individual's special characteristics along with a g threshold that is sufficient to allow the individual the background knowledge to understand the subject matter he or she is studying. The g threshold necessary for the potential of genius to exist is probably somewhere between 1.5 to 2.0 sigma (124 to 132 on the Stanford-Binet) above the mean."
I did not say I'm not guilty of confirmation bias; I'm giving my opinion of what I've observed over years of posting on message boards. The fact that I strongly defend my points doesn't alter the objective nature of the discussion.
I am not trying to be snippy, I'm just trying to give my honest opinion on the issue. I think I deserve credit in making an effort to be objective, compared to the majority of Langan's critics who make no effort to be objective and immediately resort to attacking his character (for very little other reason than the fact that he preformed well on an IQ test).
I'll make a small quote from a different forum:
"Don't feed the trolls"
I'll let it to you guys to figure out what it means in this case.
And a general advice on any science argument. Don't use arguments in a discussion with someone who doesn't give any themselves. It is just time-consuming.
Everything you seem to say is laced with a condescending tone, from your posts to your signature. Why exactly do you feel that you're entitled to this glorified position?
You have made an assertion based upon your observation of comments made on various internet forums over a period of years. You assert that these comments indicate two or three things: certain individuals claim high IQ that they do not actually possess; these same people are also afraid of IQ tests since these could reveal they are not as smart as they think they are. (You may also have said they were deluded; I think this was certainly implied.)
You gave two examples of the type of comment on which you had based you conclusion. I introduced myself as an example of someone who would confidently make the same comments. On that basis you should reach the same conclusion about me as you did about those other internet examples. I know that my statements were factually correct, so I wish to understand if there are any differences I am missing between what I have said and what they have said. If there is no significant difference then I can safely deduce that your interpretation of what they said is flawed. Of course this will offer nothing to others in assessing your reliability, but it cetainly provides me with the necessary evidence. If I knew of another person who made these same claims I would have posted about them. I chose what was to hand, which happened to be myself.
Well, I don't 'believe' I have a genius level IQ, I accept that a properly formulated test administered by a trained and certified psychologist measured my IQ at that level. I continue to be suspicious as to the significance of such a measurement and the interpretations that can be placed upon it.
1) So, you are making deductions as to an individual's IQ based upon a single claim!
I ask you again: given that three people, two of your examples, and myself are saying much the same thing, what enables you to say that they are lying cowards, but apparently decided - at least in your initial response - that I am not? What is the distinction you are making between their assertions and my assertion? Or, are you now agreed that based upon the evidence and a consistent interpretation of it by yourself, I am also a lying coward.
Since we appear to have established to your satisfaction that I am probably a lying coward it isn't much of a stretch to think I may be lying here also. But this is where I have a problem. You concede that there are exceptions to everything. Now I know I am telling the truth here. I also know that my statements are apparently indistinguishable from those on which you have based your opinion. So I provisionally tend to the view that these similar statements were made by persons who, like me, were telling the truth. This leads me to ask for further clarification: on what basis have you concluded that these and other examples were of people lying?[Well because I haven't seen the actual results and am left only to take your word on it, I cannot put any weight on your claims. Nor does it matter; again, there are exceptions with everything.
Do you feel it is scientific to redefine terms that are reasonably well defined within science? Do you think such redefinition is likely to increase confusion, or reduce it?
First of all, my signature is very true. With the possible exception of active research fields.,. 99,9 of the questions and ideas can be found and confirmed or disproved. With well cited sources on the internet. Sure it i possible people are new to this. But it is terribly frustrating to see, that even if you show them the alternatives. They sometimes chose to simply ignore them. Also if you make a simple argument they can do themselves, and do at home. They still don't believe it. They rather belief in (their own) made up stories, then their own eyes. This happens so much, that i decided to put a provocative quote out there.As to the reason I sometimes sound condescending, yes i can imagine that. Just before this post i made a third well referenced argumented and easily to verify argument. and the op in question said he had to dumb things down for me. I mean, if you if you are so sure of what you are saying and still choose to ignore easy to check arguments. Then yes, i do sound a little condesending because i honestly cannot belief people would rather give up their sight, and ears then to give up their beliefs. That is probably the most unscientific thing to do. And goes against everything this forum is about. I keep replying to everything, because i have been teaching for 7 years, but by now i know a lost cause when i see one. And this thread is one. I'm not going to reply to this thread any more, it is a waste of time, i have a research posiyion to go to.Everything you seem to say is laced with a condescending tone, from your posts to your signature. Why exactly do you feel that you're entitled to this glorified position?
I've noticed such arguments over the years of posting with other members; I refer to it as the "bullshit principle" whereby an individual tries to justify his or her illogical questions or arguments by merely repeating them, even though they carry no more weight the second time. The fact is that I do not know if you are a "lying, deluded, coward," nor does it matter. By your definition of liar, deluded, and coward, on the other hand, anyone that has at one point told a lie for his or her own emotional gain is therefore a liar, deluded, coward, which would essentially include the entire world.
And again, this has nothing to do with anything, you may not be a lying, deluded, coward but you are cetainly demonstrating narcissistic tendences by trying to focus a discussion on you and asking questions that are not relevant to anything objective. You actually plan to destroy an argument that's based on my observations of many people by citing yourself as a specific example and claiming you did well on an IQ test no one on this forum has witnessed you take.1) So, you are making deductions as to an individual's IQ based upon a single claim!
I ask you again: given that three people, two of your examples, and myself are saying much the same thing, what enables you to say that they are lying cowards, but apparently decided - at least in your initial response - that I am not? What is the distinctio n you are making between their assertions and my assertion? Or, are you now agreed that based upon the evidence and a consistent interpretation of it by yourself, I am also a lying coward.
My favorite part of your post "So, you are making deductions as to an individual's IQ based upon a single claim!" and yet you expect me to revise my opinions based on a single case study that I have seen no evidence of.
The basis that less than 1% of the world's population has an IQ of at least 140, and yet so many people claim that they do (or hover around there, if not much higher). There are some people that claim that they have a really high IQ just to make themselves appear intelligent.
There is no scientifically precise definition of genius.
Except all you said in your last post was cryptic speech. Cryptic speech is not common among people that read and understand others arguments, but it is very common among individuals with exceedingly inflated views of themselves.
I shall take up a fuller response in a couple of day, buts in the meantime these points need addressing.
Strawman. I never said there was a scinetifically precide definition. I very carefully stated "Do you feel it is scientific to redefine terms that are reasonably well defined within science?" The term genius is generally assigned to an individual who scores above a particular level on a particular IQ test. I stated it very carefully because I wished it to reflect the facts and to minimis the opportunity for misunderstanding or misinterpretation. I hadn't allowed for deliberate misunderstanding.There is no scientifically precise definition of genius.
I suspect you sincerely believe this to ba logical conclusion. You are wrong. Has it not occured to you that you get the same result if only those people who do have a high IQ put themselves forward and those who do not remain silent. While this may not be the case you cannot eliminate it as a reasonble possibility and thus the foundations of your conclusion are shifting sands.The basis that less than 1% of the world's population has an IQ of at least 140, and yet so many people claim that they do (or hover around there, if not much higher). There are some people that claim that they have a really high IQ just to make themselves appear intelligent.
There are two distinct cases: you make a deduction on IQ based on a singel remark; I make a deduction based upon a properly administered IQ test. Those are two quite dsiticnt things. This really does come down to the fact that you are, in essence, saying I am so unbreliable that you think there is a good possibility I am lying about the test and so my testimony can be ignored. I see no benefit to continuing a conversation with someone who cannot accept a simple declaration of personal experience as fact. By all means question the significance of that experience etc, but really!My favorite part of your post "So, you are making deductions as to an individual's IQ based upon a single claim!" and yet you expect me to revise my opinions based on a single case study that I have seen no evidence of.
I sincerely hope that you do not believe what you just said; don't be so naive, go ahead and post a thread on any other message board asking about IQ tests and what peoples IQs are and you'll have swarms of posters claiming 130 to 200+ IQs. There are gifted individuals that post on message boards, I've met several, but the majority of those that claim such IQs are generally lying.
Another fine example of the bullshit principle; trying to strengthen a statement via repetition.
If your IQ is as high as you claim it is, than why have you shown such poor reasoning abilities throughout this discussion? The essence of the debate, based around whether people are untruthful about their IQs and for what reason (thus far I have given two), cannot be strengthed or weakened by a single example. I'm not saying you don't have a genius level IQ, I'm not saying you do. I'm saying it's irrelevant to the discussion.
Perhaps I wasn't as careful in reading this paragraph of your post, but there is as good reason for that, for it is (as many of your other arguments are) irrelevant to the discussion.
| « Why does Graphene shrink when heated? | Why did you launch a new Physics Forum? » |
| Bookmarks |
Bookmarks |
LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
