The CTMU by Christopher Michael Langan [877x670 - 295KB]

[–] • 0 pt

(edited )

The question, of course, becomes how to situate God within reality

Langan uses duality between freedom and constraint to define concepts, where I have been using the phrases 'privacy and publicity'

I love the CTMU, but I'm a bit miffed at Langan's "folksy" treatment of the God question, as if he's trying to preserve the sanctity of traditional religion. Langan makes no mention that Conspansion is concpetually identical to Reincarnation, which lets me know about his cultural bias on the issue.

How is God to be situated? By Langan's account, God = G.O.D. ("Global Operator-Designer"). But according to the CTMU's logic, God can't be other than "UBT" (Unbound Telesis), a connection which Langan never seems to make. Rather, Langan promotes the "Global Operator" aspect of God as a reflexive causal component of reality, which to my mind may as well be describing "Satan", not God.

The actual means of God's situation in reality is quite simple really. UBT = eternally pure stasis, namely owing to the lack of any external compliment by which UBT could be measured or observed in any way. No information = zero entropy = pure stasis = pure freedom (from constraint).

Shamans, Mystics, Buddhists and the like have known this for centuries: that the empty mind, free of of sensory content, memories, and emotions, quite readily and automatically defaults to the Absolute nature of reality (ie, the absolute nature of Mind), which as I've already discussed is an eternally pure stasis.

The word "Zen", or actually "Chan" in Chinese, when etymologically reduced to its component characters, means "alone, simply and exhaustively with the cosmos", offering a description of monastic plurality, and the privative means by which it can be realized, just not in public.

So by my analysis, the nature of God, which is UBT, which is eternally pure stasis, can't be publically displayed or demonstrated, because being the Absolute state without compliment, nothing could "be there" to witness it.

> The question, of course, becomes how to situate God within reality > Langan uses duality between freedom and constraint to define concepts, where I have been using the phrases 'privacy and publicity' I love the CTMU, but I'm a bit miffed at Langan's "folksy" treatment of the God question, as if he's trying to preserve the sanctity of traditional religion. Langan makes no mention that Conspansion is concpetually identical to Reincarnation, which lets me know about his cultural bias on the issue. How is God to be situated? By Langan's account, God = G.O.D. ("Global Operator-Designer"). But according to the CTMU's logic, God can't be other than "UBT" (Unbound Telesis), a connection which Langan never seems to make. Rather, Langan promotes the "Global Operator" aspect of God as a reflexive causal component of reality, which to my mind may as well be describing "Satan", not God. The actual means of God's situation in reality is quite simple really. UBT = eternally pure stasis, namely owing to the lack of any external compliment by which UBT could be measured or observed in any way. No information = zero entropy = pure stasis = pure freedom (from constraint). Shamans, Mystics, Buddhists and the like have known this for centuries: that the empty mind, free of of sensory content, memories, and emotions, quite readily and automatically defaults to the Absolute nature of reality (ie, the absolute nature of Mind), which as I've already discussed is an eternally pure stasis. The word "Zen", or actually "Chan" in Chinese, when etymologically reduced to its component characters, means "alone, simply and exhaustively with the cosmos", offering a description of monastic plurality, and the privative means by which it can be realized, just not in public. So by my analysis, the nature of God, which is UBT, which is eternally pure stasis, can't be publically displayed or demonstrated, because being the Absolute state without compliment, nothing could "be there" to witness it.

parent
link

[–] • 0 pt

(edited )

I'm a bit miffed at Langan's "folksy" treatment of the God question, as if he's trying to preserve the sanctity of traditional religion.

I disagree, but here's why. Given CTMU and all of its implications, what obvious reason is there to deny the sanctity of religion? It seems to me that a great deal of the underlying pure logic of CTMU was elaborated first by Aristotle and later the Scholastics.

To dismiss the representations of God in these theories as 'folksy' is to miss two points. One, that the CTMU itself gives us reason to take symbolic realism seriously, i.e. that mankind's deepest symbols for ultimate reality, being the products of complex intellective acts, have a unique reality far closer to the original Greek meaning of the term symbol. That we call this folksy is, to me, just a bit of modern pomp, favoring modern computational terms (as in Langan's global operator) because they lack personality.

Second, very quickly we find that Langan abandons the Thomistic logic about God itself, in favor of focusing on a kind of pantheistic cosmology, where the universe itself becomes a stand-in equivalent.

But we ought to wonder if the logic (absent either the folk or the computational overlay in vocabulary) would actually lead us to a necessary conclusion that God is something like a person (meaning something having beliefs, basic powers, and intentional states).

Aquinas would have said, yes, God is a person. I actually don't think Langan avoids this complication at all, but instead skirts it a bit. I still need to do some further reading before I start to say anything more concrete about it.

The actual means of God's situation in reality is quite simple really. UBT = eternally pure stasis

that the empty mind, free of of sensory content, memories, and emotions, quite readily and automatically defaults to the Absolute nature of reality

This is where I see a few ideas that will become problems.

Pure potential involves no act. It is not nothingness, which I appreciated that Langan emphasized, but by definition anything which exists in potentia must be actualized by something which is already in act.

If not, we run into the problem where God is both the intention to act and the pure potential upon which is acted. But if an innate telos exists in every function (to use Langan's term), then the overall utility was at the very least an intention which existed prior to actualizing any potential.

This description of God which equates it with the UBT and with a mind consisting in zero information content presents us with the same kind of logical trouble as creatio ex nihilo.

Can we actually call a mind with only potential and zero information a mind? To me this begs the question.

Ontologically, and despite the fact I have resisted this for a long time, I don't see how we avoid a trinitarian ontology for God.

At the end of the day, I also don't think that there is logically any difference between zero information and perfect/infinite information. There is no logical difference between the God mind that knows all, or knows nothing, or the God mind that is everywhere and nowhere. These boil down to problems of language.

Even 'potential for existence' is not nothing. If God were equivalent to this sea of pure potential, then it would at least take for there to be His own self-sustenance and self-reference; some essential "form" would still have to exist, however abstract.

As far as I have been able to reduce this, it is not possible to describe God in terms of a monist ontology.

@PS @KingOfWhiteAmerica

(Just so you know, we often ping each other so that it is easier for us to follow these conversations.)

>I'm a bit miffed at Langan's "folksy" treatment of the God question, as if he's trying to preserve the sanctity of traditional religion. I disagree, but here's why. Given CTMU and all of its implications, what obvious reason is there to deny the sanctity of religion? It seems to me that a great deal of the underlying pure logic of CTMU was elaborated first by Aristotle and later the Scholastics. To dismiss the representations of God in these theories as 'folksy' is to miss two points. One, that the CTMU itself gives us reason to take symbolic realism seriously, i.e. that mankind's deepest symbols for ultimate reality, being the products of complex intellective acts, have a unique reality far closer to the original Greek meaning of the term symbol. That we call this folksy is, to me, just a bit of modern pomp, favoring modern computational terms (as in Langan's *global operator*) because they lack personality. Second, very quickly we find that Langan abandons the Thomistic logic about God itself, in favor of focusing on a kind of pantheistic cosmology, where the universe itself becomes a stand-in equivalent. But we ought to wonder if the logic (absent either the folk or the computational overlay in vocabulary) would actually lead us to a necessary conclusion that God is something like a person (meaning something having beliefs, basic powers, and intentional states). Aquinas would have said, yes, God is a person. I actually don't think Langan avoids this complication at all, but instead skirts it a bit. I still need to do some further reading before I start to say anything more concrete about it. >The actual means of God's situation in reality is quite simple really. UBT = eternally pure stasis >that the empty mind, free of of sensory content, memories, and emotions, quite readily and automatically defaults to the Absolute nature of reality This is where I see a few ideas that will become problems. Pure potential involves no act. It is not nothingness, which I appreciated that Langan emphasized, but by definition anything which exists in potentia must be actualized by something which is already in act. If not, we run into the problem where God is both the intention to act and the pure potential *upon which* is acted. But if an innate telos exists in every function (to use Langan's term), then the overall utility was at the very least an intention which existed prior to actualizing any potential. This description of God which equates it with the UBT and with a mind consisting in zero information content presents us with the same *kind* of logical trouble as *creatio ex nihilo*. Can we actually call a mind with *only* potential and zero information a mind? To me this begs the question. Ontologically, and despite the fact I have *resisted* this for a long time, I don't see how we avoid a *trinitarian* ontology for God. At the end of the day, I also don't think that there is logically any difference between zero information and perfect/infinite information. There is no logical difference between the God mind that knows all, or knows nothing, or the God mind that is everywhere and nowhere. These boil down to problems of language. Even 'potential for existence' is not nothing. If God were equivalent to this sea of pure potential, then it would at least take for there to be His own self-sustenance and self-reference; some essential "form" would still have to exist, however abstract. As far as I have been able to reduce this, it is not possible to describe God in terms of a monist ontology. @PS @KingOfWhiteAmerica (Just so you know, we often ping each other so that it is easier for us to follow these conversations.)

parent
link

[–] • 0 pt

(edited )

...what obvious reason is there to deny the sanctity of religion?

I think you answer the question for me. For example, I agree that...

...the CTMU itself gives us reason to take symbolic realism seriously...

... yet "religion" isn't symbolic realism, it's rather symbolic (mythic) authority figures, allegories at best, starting with the "Big Guy" upstairs, and by extension his Earthly representatives, with the guy who's "death and rebirth" is central to his character leading the Earthly contingent of rulers. This sort of "authority-figure" based reasoning isn't a description of God, it's rather the playbook of Satan or Mara (or AI) for controlling their hoodwinked minions (allegorically speaking of course).

For the record, I'm not religious, but I understand the meanings of God & Satan as metaphorical allegories relevant to reality-theory, and hence respect their historical importance and reason for inclusion into the religious myths. I simply disagree with most any interpretations of such texts that I've heard. The failure of Biblical scholars to routinely discuss Jesus's death & rebirth as a direct allegory with the "enlightenment" of Buddha renders popular religious interpretations of the Bible suspect at best.

That we call this folksy is, to me, just a bit of modern pomp...

I can't say you're wrong, but to be fair I did put the term "folksy" in quotes, and I'm not trying to take a jab at Langan personally or else religious people generally, just the (self proclaimed) authority figures of the religions themselves. Langan has been accused in social media of being a "cult like" figure, but I don't see this, and I would be the first to roundly criticize it. If somehow Langan is a cult leader, it's entirely secret to me, or else he's just the least successful cult leader I've heard of. Perhaps Langan can get a fleet of Rolls Royces going and change his name to Langan Shri Rajneesh, or perhaps orchestrate a mass suicide in the jungle to prove me wrong? (heh)

...we find that Langan abandons the Thomistic logic about God itself, in favor of focusing on a kind of pantheistic cosmology, where the universe itself becomes a stand-in equivalent.

I agree, and perhaps I'm just arguing over personal statements and opinions made by Langan in various media not necessarily directly related to the CTMU essay itself. The "universe" can be interpreted as "the observable universe" (of science), or as UBT. The former we can coherently discuss. The problem with the latter UBT-description is it can't make sense by any demonstration, except perhaps by extended "symbolic realism" offered by the CTMU, which is a tall order for us sub-200 IQ peasants. Langan's own texts arguably preserve the sanctity of the God concept in general, which is quite worthy a task, with everything from faith and fidelity to honor and justice hanging in the metaphorical balance, yet this still leaves the possibility open for mistaking "the Devil" for the real "God".

Pure potential involves no act.

You've cut right to the core and virtual proof of my argument. God can't "act" or be "acted upon". God can't be dependent nor conditional, so "acting" is out of the question by categorical necessity. God in the "Global" sense is the "unmovable object" of the proverbial dichotomy, God's own capacity to realize God, in what we call "real" conscious time, as exhibited by raw sentience and higher forms of consciousness, is the ultimate "unstoppable force" acting on the immovable object.

Only terms like unboundedness, which is nothingness, which is pure freedom, which (in physical terms) is a primordial infinite mass (immovable object), can suffice to describe what "God" must be in the global sense, and the term UBT works even better, because it implicates the "observable universe" as parallel-to or rather subsumed by UBT itself, via syntactic overlay and telic feedback, and hence the observable universe and life are "just" intrinsic aspects of UBT, and the only "intention" is Volition or else Karma.

God isn't separate from the universe of science, which is to say that God or else "nothingness" doesn't come before or after "something" but rather surrounds and subsumes "things" (as per empty space). UBT is furthermore ever present, as per empty space, yet the reflexive operator associated with science and (allegedly) defined as "G.O.D." isn't clearly God in the "global" sense of UBT (as I see it), but rather the God of the world or observable universe, a worldly God better described as Satan or Mara.

Both God qua UBT & G.O.D. qua the Devil must exist, first by the Absolute necessity of global containment and constituency, and second by the necessity of the realization (awareness) of global self containment/God/UBT in "real time", including animal sentience and particularly the conscious awareness of mankind, or any "Dasein" as Heidegger says. Even just raw sentience per non human animals can't be other than infinite potential acting upon itself to thereby realize itself.

If not, we run into the problem where God is both the intention to act and the pure potential upon which is acted. But if an innate telos exists in every function (to use Langan's term), then the overall utility was at the very least an intention which existed prior to actualizing any potential.

Hence why the reflexive telic "G.O.D." operator is "Satan" or "Mara" and not the true global and static "God". The "good" God is UBT. The operator equivalent to the "observable universe" in the pantheistic sense is Satan or Mara, ie the "bad God". Both are required. UBT/God is required by Absolute necessity of self containment and self configuration, and "G.O.D." by the necessity of the Absolute (itself) being realized ("...simply and exhaustively...", meaning UBT (itself) or else God (the good one) being realized with out any subject/object/media trilogy spoiling the awareness, which is pure stasis and the Absolute, which is God qua UBT, Q.E.D. Where "G.O.D." actually means "UBT", I stand corrected, or else I've corrected what I perceive to be unclear about the CTMU's "G.O.D.", while explaining the purpose of "Satan" in the process.

Again, the only description from media I've heard which serves to describe God being realized is the very etymology of the word "Chan", meaning "alone simply and exhaustively with the cosmos". Realization of "nothingness" is the only "act" of God, yet is reflexive and thereby no act whatsoever.

This description of God which equates it with the UBT and with a mind consisting in zero information content presents us with the same kind of logical trouble as creatio ex nihilo.

The description of God = UBT or description of ex nihilo does present a problem, but its realization doesn't present any problems. The realization of UBT is beyond the "public" domain of presentation and coherent discourse, meaning there's no media which can contain/define/project the demonstration and of UBT itself, nor can any media/object/subject (trialic) scenario serve to demonstrate any sort of awareness of a form of realization of the relative as also an unrealized realization of the Absolute by default. However realization doesn't need to be public; it can't involve media, nor does it need to involve sensations whatsoever.

The (Zen-like) direct realization of UBT via the stilled mind is likewise the direct realization of ex nihilo creation, or else where does the next thought come from? Because the "realization" of pure stasis involves what otherwise is considered "no realization whatsoever", the realization of the Absolute (Zen, Chan) is often allegorized as "death", such as the death and rebirth of Jesus Christ, or in the "Book of the Dead".

The purpose of life is the full and direct realization of UBT, in the conscious sense, beyond the realization afforded by "mere" self constituency. In fact, the sense of consciousness where we can't directly realize UBT, the "ordinary" or "normal" sense, is precisely what's required, in its absence and reappearance, for UBT to be realized.

We can presume that even without life, meaning before and after life exists, UBT is always fully "self realized", at least in the sense that it's fully self composed and self contained, and thereby lacking external compliment or measure (a pure stasis). But given that we know life and consciousness exist, then it stands to reason that the means of "self realization" available to UBT (God) is beyond "just" mere topological self containment, but includes self realization in the sense pertaining to and thereby necessitating life and conscious as we know it.

Can we actually call a mind with only potential and zero information a mind? To me this begs the question.

No and we don't need to. We can call this state of zero information a state of mind, much like knowing the temperature outside is another sort of (non zero) state of mind. We couldn't have a "temperature outside" whatsoever without some abstract notion of Absolute Zero anyways, so "zero information" is never fully off the table logically speaking, it's just never something any media can produce or demonstrate effectively (prove). For the record, the first five letters of the word "demonstrate" are demon.

UBT must be realized, but it doesn't need to be directly realized by every being which can possibly realize it or realize things in general (Dasein), nor does realization (itself) need to be understood as much more than basic awareness or raw sentience, like I realize Eminem is a better white rapper than myself. Conscious perception and ultimately Volition (Karma) are required because only in their absence and reappearance has UBT (and the nature of the self) been "fully" realized.

I don't see how we avoid a trinitarian ontology for God.

We can't avoid using some trilogy for descriptions, the media always playing its part, and so this is where the Devil enters the picture by necessity. The Devil never lies, yet never tells the whole truth either. Scientific descriptions aren't "wrong", and they can implicate, through proper modeling and "symbolic realism", the deeper order of reality - yet, we can't then presume that some form of communicable theory or religious text can suffice to demonstrate the Absolute, simply because the Absolute can't have an external compliment (a media) by which its description can be manifest, nor can it have any subject to which, nor object by which it's to be realized. It can only be realized in the absence and reappearance, ie "death and rebirth" of Volition (Karma). This is why Karma is the "causality" of all causes in Buddhism, because nothing arises (in the scientific sense of observation) that isn't also the object of Karma (volition, intention). Only when Karma is (temporarily) extinguished does UBT arise as a state of mind, which was the reason for life in the first place, owing to fulfilment of the full realization of the Absolute.

We "avoid" trinitarianism(sp?) if and when we avoid partaking in Volition (Karma), yet without literal dying in the process. Being freed or void of Karma or else Volition is the key to the realization of the Absolute, UBT, or God. This may sound trivial or insane, yet clearing the mind of thoughts, feelings, and memories, and then realizing your awareness arising reflexively from the very nothingness (UBT, God) from which it ultimately must, is not something anyone can "accomplish", at least not volitionally, nor anything which could be demonstrated via any media.

I also don't think that there is logically any difference between zero information and perfect/infinite information. There is no logical difference between the God mind that knows all, or knows nothing, or the God mind that is everywhere and nowhere. These boil down to problems of language.

I couldn't agree more nor restate this any better. Langan has made similar comments regarding the nature of Zero...

Discussion on the Ultranet List

Russell: My question is not about whether the universe is conspanding or expanding, but how can nothing be "outside" the universe? Because if nothing is defined as zero, then how can "zero" contain or be outside something? Zero is a mathematical point; zero dimensional space.

*Chris: The symbol for “nothingness” is 0, and 0 is a term that requires interpretation. For example, in the context of the integers, 0 represents a center or cancellation point between the positive and the negative, while in the context of the non-negative integers, it simply reflects absence. Moreover, 0 can apply to information, or to that which information determines. Now, 0 information corresponds at once to homogeneity and therefore to unity, and to unbounded potential and thus to infinity. So depending on how we interpret 0, “nothingness” can mean absence, cancellation, unity or infinity. This tells us that what is important is not the symbol 0, but its interpretation, and thus the entire cognitive matrix on which the interpretation is based. And within this matrix, nothingness is a complex interplay of, you guessed it, absence, cancellation, unity and infinity. It has structure. Within the cognitive matrix of our minds, the structure of the ultimate groundstate of existence called “nothingness” is UBT...and this is no mere “empty set”.*

Russell: The universe must be infinite in some way as to be "all there is". Un-reality could be hidden within reality? Chris: No, unreality is ultimately contained in UBT, which for present purposes we might as well call "prereality". But every time a quantum wave function collapses, a new piece of "unreality" is defined (as the complement of that which is actualized by the collapse). In other words, just as reality is stratified, so is unreality. One level of unreality is unbound; other levels are bound by this or some other reality.

Neither Chris nor Russell seem to mention the obvious "hiding place" where "unreality" is constricted by "this ... reality", namely "empty space", which is simply the unused potential or "path not taken" by any conspanding operator, up to and including the G.O.D. operator. Regardless if potential is bound for perception purposes or not, it's still forever eternally "unbound" in the UBT sense from the Absolute perspective.

Even 'potential for existence' is not nothing.

But it's not "something" either. The Absolute is beyond the dichotomy of existence and non existence, subsuming of existence, non existence, reality, and unreality as the required elements if its own self demonstrative proof of itself.

(Just so you know, we often ping each other so that it is easier for us to follow these conversations.)

Ok thanks, I hadn't figured that out, somehow supposing the pings were automatically generated based on the comment hierarchy.

@Chiro

>...what obvious reason is there to deny the sanctity of religion? I think you answer the question for me. For example, I agree that... >...the CTMU itself gives us reason to take symbolic realism seriously... ... yet "religion" isn't symbolic realism, it's rather symbolic (mythic) authority figures, allegories at best, starting with the "Big Guy" upstairs, and by extension his Earthly representatives, with the guy who's "death and rebirth" is central to his character leading the Earthly contingent of rulers. This sort of "authority-figure" based reasoning isn't a description of God, it's rather the playbook of Satan or Mara (or AI) for controlling their hoodwinked minions (allegorically speaking of course). For the record, I'm not religious, but I understand the meanings of God & Satan as metaphorical allegories relevant to reality-theory, and hence respect their historical importance and reason for inclusion into the religious myths. I simply disagree with most any interpretations of such texts that I've heard. The failure of Biblical scholars to routinely discuss Jesus's death & rebirth as a direct allegory with the "enlightenment" of Buddha renders popular religious interpretations of the Bible suspect at best. >That we call this folksy is, to me, just a bit of modern pomp... I can't say you're wrong, but to be fair I did put the term "folksy" in quotes, and I'm not trying to take a jab at Langan personally or else religious people generally, just the (self proclaimed) authority figures of the religions themselves. Langan has been accused in social media of being a "cult like" figure, but I don't see this, and I would be the first to roundly criticize it. If somehow Langan is a cult leader, it's entirely secret to me, or else he's just the least successful cult leader I've heard of. Perhaps Langan can get a fleet of Rolls Royces going and change his name to Langan Shri Rajneesh, or perhaps orchestrate a mass suicide in the jungle to prove me wrong? (heh) >...we find that Langan abandons the Thomistic logic about God itself, in favor of focusing on a kind of pantheistic cosmology, where the universe itself becomes a stand-in equivalent. I agree, and perhaps I'm just arguing over personal statements and opinions made by Langan in various media not necessarily directly related to the CTMU essay itself. The "universe" can be interpreted as "the observable universe" (of science), or as UBT. The former we can coherently discuss. The problem with the latter UBT-description is it can't make sense by any demonstration, except perhaps by extended "symbolic realism" offered by the CTMU, which is a tall order for us sub-200 IQ peasants. Langan's own texts arguably preserve the sanctity of the God concept in general, which is quite worthy a task, with everything from faith and fidelity to honor and justice hanging in the metaphorical balance, yet this still leaves the possibility open for mistaking "the Devil" for the real "God". >Pure potential involves no act. You've cut right to the core and virtual proof of my argument. God can't "act" or be "acted upon". God can't be dependent nor conditional, so "acting" is out of the question by categorical necessity. God in the "Global" sense is the "unmovable object" of the proverbial dichotomy, God's own capacity to realize God, in what we call "real" conscious time, as exhibited by raw sentience and higher forms of consciousness, is the ultimate "unstoppable force" acting on the immovable object. Only terms like unboundedness, which is nothingness, which is pure freedom, which (in physical terms) is a primordial infinite mass (immovable object), can suffice to describe what "God" must be in the global sense, and the term UBT works even better, because it implicates the "observable universe" as parallel-to or rather subsumed by UBT itself, via syntactic overlay and telic feedback, and hence the observable universe and life are "just" intrinsic aspects of UBT, and the only "intention" is Volition or else Karma. God isn't separate from the universe of science, which is to say that God or else "nothingness" doesn't come before or after "something" but rather surrounds and subsumes "things" (as per empty space). UBT is furthermore ever present, as per empty space, yet the reflexive operator associated with science and (allegedly) defined as "G.O.D." isn't clearly God in the "global" sense of UBT (as I see it), but rather the God of the world or observable universe, a worldly God better described as Satan or Mara. Both God qua UBT & G.O.D. qua the Devil must exist, first by the Absolute necessity of global containment and constituency, and second by the necessity of the realization (awareness) of global self containment/God/UBT in "real time", including animal sentience and particularly the conscious awareness of mankind, or any "Dasein" as Heidegger says. Even just raw sentience per non human animals can't be other than infinite potential acting upon itself to thereby realize itself. >If not, we run into the problem where God is both the intention to act and the pure potential upon which is acted. But if an innate telos exists in every function (to use Langan's term), then the overall utility was at the very least an intention which existed prior to actualizing any potential. Hence why the reflexive telic "G.O.D." operator is "Satan" or "Mara" and not the true global and static "God". The "good" God is UBT. The operator equivalent to the "observable universe" in the pantheistic sense is Satan or Mara, ie the "bad God". Both are required. UBT/God is required by Absolute necessity of self containment and self configuration, and "G.O.D." by the necessity of the Absolute (itself) being realized ("...simply and exhaustively...", meaning UBT (itself) or else God (the good one) being realized with out any subject/object/media trilogy spoiling the awareness, which is pure stasis and the Absolute, which is God qua UBT, Q.E.D. Where "G.O.D." actually means "UBT", I stand corrected, or else I've corrected what I perceive to be unclear about the CTMU's "G.O.D.", while explaining the purpose of "Satan" in the process. Again, the only description from media I've heard which serves to describe God being realized is the very etymology of the word "Chan", meaning "alone simply and exhaustively with the cosmos". Realization of "nothingness" is the only "act" of God, yet is reflexive and thereby no act whatsoever. >This description of God which equates it with the UBT and with a mind consisting in zero information content presents us with the same kind of logical trouble as creatio ex nihilo. The description of God = UBT or description of ex nihilo does present a problem, but its *realization* doesn't present any problems. The realization of UBT is beyond the "public" domain of presentation and coherent discourse, meaning there's no media which can contain/define/project the demonstration and of UBT itself, nor can any media/object/subject (trialic) scenario serve to demonstrate any sort of awareness of a form of realization of the relative as also an unrealized realization of the Absolute by default. However realization doesn't need to be public; it can't involve media, nor does it need to involve sensations whatsoever. The (Zen-like) direct realization of UBT via the stilled mind is likewise the direct realization of ex nihilo creation, or else where does the next thought come from? Because the "realization" of pure stasis involves what otherwise is considered "no realization whatsoever", the realization of the Absolute (Zen, Chan) is often allegorized as "death", such as the death and rebirth of Jesus Christ, or in the "Book of the Dead". The purpose of life is the full and direct realization of UBT, in the conscious sense, beyond the realization afforded by "mere" self constituency. In fact, the sense of consciousness where we can't directly realize UBT, the "ordinary" or "normal" sense, is precisely what's required, in its absence and reappearance, for UBT to be realized. We can presume that even without life, meaning before and after life exists, UBT is always fully "self realized", at least in the sense that it's fully self composed and self contained, and thereby lacking external compliment or measure (a pure stasis). But given that we know life and consciousness exist, then it stands to reason that the means of "self realization" available to UBT (God) is beyond "just" mere topological self containment, but includes self realization in the sense pertaining to and thereby necessitating life and conscious as we know it. >Can we actually call a mind with only potential and zero information a mind? To me this begs the question. No and we don't need to. We can call this state of zero information a state of mind, much like knowing the temperature outside is another sort of (non zero) state of mind. We couldn't have a "temperature outside" whatsoever without some abstract notion of Absolute Zero anyways, so "zero information" is never fully off the table logically speaking, it's just never something any media can produce or demonstrate effectively (prove). For the record, the first five letters of the word "demonstrate" are demon. UBT must be realized, but it doesn't need to be directly realized by every being which can possibly realize it or realize things in general (Dasein), nor does realization (itself) need to be understood as much more than basic awareness or raw sentience, like I realize Eminem is a better white rapper than myself. Conscious perception and ultimately Volition (Karma) are required because only in their absence and reappearance has UBT (and the nature of the self) been "fully" realized. >I don't see how we avoid a trinitarian ontology for God. We can't avoid using some trilogy for descriptions, the media always playing its part, and so this is where the Devil enters the picture by necessity. The Devil never lies, yet never tells the whole truth either. Scientific descriptions aren't "wrong", and they can implicate, through proper modeling and "symbolic realism", the deeper order of reality - yet, we can't then presume that some form of communicable theory or religious text can suffice to demonstrate the Absolute, simply because the Absolute can't have an external compliment (a media) by which its description can be manifest, nor can it have any subject to which, nor object by which it's to be realized. It can only be realized in the absence and reappearance, ie "death and rebirth" of Volition (Karma). This is why Karma is the "causality" of all causes in Buddhism, because nothing arises (in the scientific sense of observation) that isn't also the object of Karma (volition, intention). Only when Karma is (temporarily) extinguished does UBT arise as a state of mind, which was the reason for life in the first place, owing to fulfilment of the full realization of the Absolute. We "avoid" trinitarianism(sp?) if and when we avoid partaking in Volition (Karma), yet without literal dying in the process. Being freed or void of Karma or else Volition is the key to the realization of the Absolute, UBT, or God. This may sound trivial or insane, yet clearing the mind of thoughts, feelings, and memories, and then realizing your awareness arising reflexively from the very nothingness (UBT, God) from which it ultimately must, is not something anyone can "accomplish", at least not volitionally, nor anything which could be demonstrated via any media. >I also don't think that there is logically any difference between zero information and perfect/infinite information. There is no logical difference between the God mind that knows all, or knows nothing, or the God mind that is everywhere and nowhere. These boil down to problems of language. I couldn't agree more nor restate this any better. Langan has made similar comments regarding the nature of Zero... >**Discussion on the Ultranet List** >*Russell: My question is not about whether the universe is conspanding or expanding, but how can nothing be "outside" the universe? Because if nothing is defined as zero, then how can "zero" contain or be outside something? Zero is a mathematical point; zero dimensional space.* >*Chris: The symbol for “nothingness” is 0, and 0 is a term that requires interpretation. For example, in the context of the integers, 0 represents a center or cancellation point between the positive and the negative, while in the context of the non-negative integers, it simply reflects absence. Moreover, 0 can apply to information, or to that which information determines. Now, 0 information corresponds at once to homogeneity and therefore to unity, and to unbounded potential and thus to infinity. So depending on how we interpret 0, “nothingness” can mean absence, cancellation, unity or infinity. This tells us that what is important is not the symbol 0, but its interpretation, and thus the entire cognitive matrix on which the interpretation is based. And within this matrix, nothingness is a complex interplay of, you guessed it, absence, cancellation, unity and infinity. It has *structure*. Within the cognitive matrix of our minds, the structure of the ultimate groundstate of existence called “nothingness” is UBT...and this is no mere “empty set”.* >*Russell: The universe must be infinite in some way as to be "all there is". Un-reality could be hidden within reality? Chris: No, unreality is ultimately contained in UBT, which for present purposes we might as well call "prereality". But every time a quantum wave function collapses, a new piece of "unreality" is defined (as the complement of that which is actualized by the collapse). In other words, just as reality is stratified, so is unreality. One level of unreality is unbound; other levels are bound by this or some other reality.* Neither Chris nor Russell seem to mention the obvious "hiding place" where "unreality" is constricted by "this ... reality", namely "empty space", which is simply the unused potential or "path not taken" by any conspanding operator, up to and including the G.O.D. operator. Regardless if potential is bound for perception purposes or not, it's still forever eternally "unbound" in the UBT sense from the Absolute perspective. >Even 'potential for existence' is not nothing. But it's not "something" either. The Absolute is beyond the dichotomy of existence and non existence, subsuming of existence, non existence, reality, and unreality as the required elements if its own self demonstrative proof of itself. >(Just so you know, we often ping each other so that it is easier for us to follow these conversations.) Ok thanks, I hadn't figured that out, somehow supposing the pings were automatically generated based on the comment hierarchy. @Chiro

parent
link

[–] • 0 pt

(edited )

... yet "religion" isn't symbolic realism, it's rather symbolic (mythic) authority figures, allegories at best, starting with the "Big Guy" upstairs, and by extension his Earthly representatives, with the guy who's "death and rebirth" is central to his character leading the Earthly contingent of rulers. This sort of "authority-figure" based reasoning isn't a description of God, it's rather the playbook of Satan or Mara (or AI) for controlling their hoodwinked minions (allegorically speaking of course).

We're truly getting on to the more sophisticated ontological questions here, but I may not have communicated clearly what I meant by symbolic realism. A symbol is, in truth, a signifier - Everything in reality could be explained as semiosis; it would seem that even CTMU agrees on this point - which allows a conscious observer of something to transcend what is accessible in the thing itself (or to go beyond). It is heavily related to analogy making, which we find becomes an authentic necessity when it comes to any discussion of the one, true God. Even the language of CTMU at this level is, at best, a form of analogy. The Greeks had an interesting take on the term symbol, which was something like 'a meeting place between two things', combined with the notion that the symbol is the 'outward sign' of the thing with which it converges. Importantly, the symbol itself is not supposed to be a mere mark or trifle. In the deepest sense, the symbol is real.

These images that mankind experiences with respect to their internal intellection of God are imperfect analogies based on our being 'empty vessels' which receive a collective unconscious 'light' or epistema that reify certain pure qualities of God. We see this in both the Kabbalah and in Christianity (truly, in all religions). Christians experience God as a father, and their images tend to converge on a cluster of qualities which reflect this, not the least of which includes and aged man with a beard (a symbolic complex upon which many peoples have converged to represent the timeless father, or the god of time itself).

If we take the CTMU seriously, and specifically its reflexive self-simulating nature (combined with our ability to transition between this terminology and a Platonic kind of emanationist cosmology), we could think that God is simulating itself, and our phenomenal experience of God is that simulation. We can't know God perfectly (in fact, I believe true knowledge of something is equivalent to ontological identity), but neither can we know any human mind perfectly. We are a consciousness that perceive signs and feeds back symbol onto these signs to create our reality. God is not the 'old man in the sky', but neither is he not that. They're simultaneously true, because if the former is true, then so must be the latter. I'm loathe to trivialize our symbols because I believe they have deep, deep reality.

The problem with the latter UBT-description is it can't make sense by any demonstration, except perhaps by extended "symbolic realism" offered by the CTMU, which is a tall order for us sub-200 IQ peasants.

That's an interesting observation in light of my above comments. IQ basically corresponds with a power to abstract, which is to say a power to distill accurate and intelligible models from intractable complexity. Someone with a massive IQ is likely to see a system like the universe in more and more symbolic terms (often expressed by the 'pure science' of mathematics, although this deprives the universe of the equally important qualities of existence, in exclusive partiality to quantity). This is a process we equate with high-powered pure reasoning. I highlighted the parallels between Langan's model and the metaphysics of Aquinas/Aristotle, because these people are all effectively doing the same thing: finding the most primitive and naked pattern that accurately describes reality. I doubt we'd be surprised to find that Aquinas and Aristotle both had very high IQs.

Only terms like unboundedness, which is nothingness, which is pure freedom, which (in physical terms) is a primordial infinite mass (immovable object), can suffice to describe what "God" must be in the global sense, and the term UBT works even better

This works together with what I have been saying so far. Ultimately, in the attempt to strip the intellection of God to its greatest nakedness (relying on the simplest conceptual additions), we always arrive at some kind of cluster of attributes, and eventually (if we're really insightful): a fundamental duality which is intellectually impassable. Good - Evil. Unstoppable - Immovable. Everything - Nothing. Private - Public, or Concealed - Revealed. This is something I was attempting to get across with the notion of 'symbolic realism'. Sure, these things are analogy, but they reflect a certain kind of gnosis, perhaps the fullest knowledge that we can have that is articulable - the rest is an ineffable feeling state.

Even Langan's model relies on just such analogies, but he couches his vocabulary in contemporary computational terms - in one sense 'modernizing' ideas that have been with us for quite some time, not just on the occidental tradition, but in eastern traditions like Buddhism and Hinduism and Taoism. I think @PS has called the abstraction that refers to this entire 'collective wisdom tradition' as Philosohia perennis. We have our various systems of symbols we use to best represent what is an ineffable internal gnosis that can only degrade in its truth by becoming language and picture. This establishes a spectrum, however, across which we can judge different religious symbolic systems according to the quality of their metaphysics/theology. It could perhaps be the case that some unique element of Truth is captured by each system in a way which is not repeatable by any other system, making all of them a gift in some regard. But we'd also think that there is one 'best' system which is closest to universal truth.

CTMU, for example, strikes me as having a great deal of worth by virtue of acting like a clear bridge between metaphysical/value-based/qualitative descriptions of reality (Aquinas-Aristotle) and the language of modern physics (mathematical, physical, computational). For the modern mind to which the antiquated language speaks less effectively, a theory like CTMU works nicely to convince today's skeptic that God is not simply compatible with the physical descriptions of the universe, He is expected.

But given that we know life and consciousness exist, then it stands to reason that the means of "self realization" available to UBT (God) is beyond "just" mere topological self containment, but includes self realization in the sense pertaining to and thereby necessitating life and conscious as we know it.

The entire paragraph which precedes this is very good. I'd just say that my own particular way of viewing reality would be as a mind. I think the panentheists like Eckhart and some of the neo-Platonists were getting close when they said that man (and corporeal reality) were the image of an image in the mind of God. What Langan has described is probably the closest verbal description of what it is to simply be a mind that it is possible to accomplish. The internally-directed conspansion of space and timescales is impossible for me to directly link to thought itself, but intuitively, something about this description just is what I take thought itself to be, for example when I am creating a fictional world in my own mind - it's not as though space-time in that world of thought is expanding. Rather, I might think that in their noumenous sense, thoughts are conspanding infinitely inward. My mental map is not limited by time, nor space, and so is dimensionless except to the extent which I give it dimension in projection, but not real extension.

Neither Chris nor Russell seem to mention the obvious "hiding place" where "unreality" is constricted by "this ... reality", namely "empty space", which is simply the unused potential or "path not taken" by any conspanding operator, up to and including the G.O.D. operator.

So here comes another troubling ontological question. Does this mean you hold a belief in some kind 'aether' theory, in which what we take to be empty space is actually some kind of vital, dynamic substance? I understand that you take the UBT to be transcendental, but you must take our contemporary substance space-time to be some kind of reified form of this, a distillation, or image of this more ineffable ultimate reality? I know that the electric universe theory, for example, also takes after Tesla and some other thinkers of his era in the belief that empty space is truly an active substance.

I suppose my question would be, if not, what are we to think about space? Certainly it has the apparent quality of extension, but I'm prone to a kind of idealism, in which the mind itself constructs experience/perception on the basis of a Kantian-esque set of categories.

But I'm also skeptical of pure idealism, and I'm not sure if CTMU does, in fact, promote a pure idealism or not. Again, this entire distinction between subject-object (i.e. I am a thing that perceives space) could fundamentally be an illusion, a reflexive self-realization, of Self within the distinction. It all gets very abstract doesn't it?

>... yet "religion" isn't symbolic realism, it's rather symbolic (mythic) authority figures, allegories at best, starting with the "Big Guy" upstairs, and by extension his Earthly representatives, with the guy who's "death and rebirth" is central to his character leading the Earthly contingent of rulers. This sort of "authority-figure" based reasoning isn't a description of God, it's rather the playbook of Satan or Mara (or AI) for controlling their hoodwinked minions (allegorically speaking of course). We're truly getting on to the more sophisticated ontological questions here, but I may not have communicated clearly what I meant by symbolic realism. A symbol is, in truth, a signifier - Everything in reality could be explained as semiosis; it would seem that even CTMU agrees on this point - which allows a conscious observer of something to transcend what is accessible in the thing itself (or to go beyond). It is heavily related to analogy making, which we find becomes an authentic necessity when it comes to any discussion of the one, true God. Even the language of CTMU at this level is, at best, a form of analogy. The Greeks had an interesting take on the term symbol, which was something like 'a meeting place between two things', combined with the notion that the symbol is the 'outward sign' of the thing with which it converges. Importantly, the symbol itself is not supposed to be a mere mark or trifle. In the deepest sense, the symbol is *real*. These images that mankind experiences with respect to their internal intellection of God are imperfect analogies based on our being 'empty vessels' which receive a collective unconscious 'light' or epistema that reify certain pure qualities of God. We see this in both the Kabbalah and in Christianity (truly, in all religions). Christians experience God as a father, and their images tend to converge on a cluster of qualities which reflect this, not the least of which includes and aged man with a beard (a symbolic complex upon which many peoples have converged to represent the timeless father, or the god of time itself). If we take the CTMU seriously, and specifically its reflexive self-simulating nature (combined with our ability to transition between this terminology and a Platonic kind of emanationist cosmology), we could think that God is simulating itself, and our phenomenal experience of God is that simulation. We can't know God perfectly (in fact, I believe true knowledge of something is equivalent to ontological identity), but neither can we know any human mind perfectly. We are a consciousness that perceive signs and feeds back symbol onto these signs to create our reality. God is not the 'old man in the sky', but neither is he *not* that. They're simultaneously true, because if the former is true, then so must be the latter. I'm loathe to trivialize our symbols because I believe they have deep, deep reality. >The problem with the latter UBT-description is it can't make sense by any demonstration, except perhaps by extended "symbolic realism" offered by the CTMU, which is a tall order for us sub-200 IQ peasants. That's an interesting observation in light of my above comments. IQ basically corresponds with a power to abstract, which is to say a power to distill accurate and intelligible models from intractable complexity. Someone with a massive IQ is likely to see a system like the universe in more and more symbolic terms (often expressed by the 'pure science' of mathematics, although this deprives the universe of the equally important *qualities* of existence, in exclusive partiality to *quantity*). This is a process we equate with high-powered pure reasoning. I highlighted the parallels between Langan's model and the metaphysics of Aquinas/Aristotle, because these people are all effectively doing the same thing: finding the most primitive and naked pattern that accurately describes reality. I doubt we'd be surprised to find that Aquinas and Aristotle both had very high IQs. >Only terms like unboundedness, which is nothingness, which is pure freedom, which (in physical terms) is a primordial infinite mass (immovable object), can suffice to describe what "God" must be in the global sense, and the term UBT works even better This works together with what I have been saying so far. Ultimately, in the attempt to strip the intellection of God to its greatest nakedness (relying on the simplest conceptual additions), we always arrive at some kind of cluster of attributes, and eventually (if we're really insightful): a fundamental *duality* which is intellectually impassable. Good - Evil. Unstoppable - Immovable. Everything - Nothing. Private - Public, or Concealed - Revealed. This is something I was attempting to get across with the notion of 'symbolic realism'. Sure, these things are analogy, but they reflect a certain kind of gnosis, perhaps the fullest knowledge that we can have that is articulable - the rest is an ineffable feeling state. Even Langan's model relies on just such analogies, but he couches his vocabulary in contemporary computational terms - in one sense 'modernizing' ideas that have been with us for quite some time, not just on the occidental tradition, but in eastern traditions like Buddhism and Hinduism and Taoism. I think @PS has called the abstraction that refers to this entire 'collective wisdom tradition' as *Philosohia perennis*. We have our various systems of symbols we use to best represent what is an ineffable internal gnosis that can *only degrade in its truth* by becoming language and picture. This establishes a spectrum, however, across which we can judge different religious symbolic systems according to the quality of their metaphysics/theology. It could perhaps be the case that some *unique* element of Truth is captured by *each* system in a way which is not repeatable by any other system, making all of them a gift in some regard. But we'd also think that there is one 'best' system which is closest to universal truth. CTMU, for example, strikes me as having a great deal of worth by virtue of acting like a clear bridge between metaphysical/value-based/qualitative descriptions of reality (Aquinas-Aristotle) and the language of modern physics (mathematical, physical, computational). For the modern mind to which the antiquated language speaks less effectively, a theory like CTMU works nicely to convince today's skeptic that God is not simply compatible with the physical descriptions of the universe, He is expected. >But given that we know life and consciousness exist, then it stands to reason that the means of "self realization" available to UBT (God) is beyond "just" mere topological self containment, but includes self realization in the sense pertaining to and thereby necessitating life and conscious as we know it. The entire paragraph which precedes this is very good. I'd just say that my own particular way of viewing reality would be as a mind. I think the panentheists like Eckhart and some of the neo-Platonists were getting close when they said that man (and corporeal reality) were the image of an image in the mind of God. What Langan has described is probably the closest *verbal* description of what it is to simply *be a mind* that it is possible to accomplish. The internally-directed conspansion of space and timescales is impossible for me to *directly* link to thought itself, but intuitively, something about this description *just is* what I take thought itself to be, for example when I am creating a fictional world in my own mind - it's not as though space-time in that world of thought is expanding. Rather, I might think that in their noumenous sense, thoughts are conspanding infinitely inward. My mental map is not limited by time, nor space, and so is dimensionless except to the extent which I give it dimension in projection, but not *real* extension. --- >Neither Chris nor Russell seem to mention the obvious "hiding place" where "unreality" is constricted by "this ... reality", namely "empty space", which is simply the unused potential or "path not taken" by any conspanding operator, up to and including the G.O.D. operator. So here comes another troubling ontological question. Does this mean you hold a belief in some kind 'aether' theory, in which what we take to be empty space is actually some kind of vital, dynamic substance? I understand that you take the UBT to be transcendental, but you must take our contemporary substance space-time to be some kind of reified form of this, a distillation, or image of this more ineffable ultimate reality? I know that the electric universe theory, for example, also takes after Tesla and some other thinkers of his era in the belief that empty space is truly an active substance. I suppose my question would be, if not, what are we to think about space? Certainly it has the *apparent* quality of extension, but I'm prone to a kind of *idealism*, in which the mind itself constructs experience/perception on the basis of a Kantian-esque set of categories. But I'm also skeptical of pure idealism, and I'm not sure if CTMU does, in fact, promote a *pure* idealism or not. Again, this entire distinction between subject-object (i.e. I am a thing that perceives space) could fundamentally be an illusion, a reflexive self-realization, of Self *within* the distinction. It all gets very abstract doesn't it?

parent
link

[–] • 0 pt

(edited )

I will be taking a look at this either tonight or tomorrow, Zero.

For future reference though, you didn't have to ping me, since you were replying to my comment. Usually we'd just ping the ones who wouldn't have known the thread was being continued.

Like these two fellas:

@PS @KingOfWhiteAmerica

The names kind of change depending on who in the thread showed interest. It's just a way to keep the convo flowing, really.

parent
link

(post is archived)