Welcome • User Guide
ToS • Privacy • Canary
Donate • Bugs • License

©2026 Poal.co

http://knowledgebase.ctmu.net/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/Langan_CTMU_0929021-1.pdf

...the CTMU describes reality as a Self-Configuring Self-Processing Language or SCSPL, a reflexive intrinsic language characterized not only by self-reference and recursive self-definition, but full self-configuration and selfexecution (reflexive read-write functionality). CTMU

The CTMU describes reality in such a way that a more basic or generic process is impossible to develop, at least given the known laws of physics.

I should add that without reference to the text's main body, the Abstract portion of the CTMU may be impossible to decipher and that Langan's writing is very difficult to quote directly without also generating a wall of text. The above quote is about as simple as the CTMU gets. Langan uses neologisms, yet these are always clearly defined in the text and accord to generic principles as outlined in the CTMU text.

A cursory search for the CTMU on Googlelag returns a bunch of self-righteous science "fan boys" attacking the CTMU, yet not a single one makes any formal arguments against the CTMU. Without their own "theory of reality" (basis) to argue from, CTMU critics seem only capable of outright naysaying, while promoting themselves or their favorite celebrity scientists as the only possible solution to scientific inquiries.

http://knowledgebase.ctmu.net/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/Langan_CTMU_0929021-1.pdf >*...the CTMU describes reality as a Self-Configuring Self-Processing Language or SCSPL, a reflexive intrinsic language characterized not only by self-reference and recursive self-definition, but full self-configuration and selfexecution (reflexive read-write functionality).* CTMU The CTMU describes reality in such a way that a more basic or generic process is impossible to develop, at least given the known laws of physics. I should add that without reference to the text's main body, the Abstract portion of the CTMU may be impossible to decipher and that Langan's writing is very difficult to quote directly without also generating a wall of text. The above quote is about as simple as the CTMU gets. Langan uses neologisms, yet these are always clearly defined in the text and accord to generic principles as outlined in the CTMU text. A cursory search for the CTMU on Googlelag returns a bunch of self-righteous science "fan boys" attacking the CTMU, yet not a single one makes any formal arguments against the CTMU. Without their own "theory of reality" (basis) to argue from, CTMU critics seem only capable of outright naysaying, while promoting themselves or their favorite celebrity scientists as the only possible solution to scientific inquiries.

(post is archived)

You are currently inside a comment thread.
Click here to see all the comments (15).
[–] • 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.