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 think we have a few interesting things to tie together here, which would be enjoyable anyway. But we have a few examples now both modern and more or less ancient that are echoing basically the same fundamentals.

I think it's all coming together.

I also noticed that his causal framework was atemporal. If you look at the image that @Zerothic included in his initial comment, you can actually see that causation - as we would perceive it - in any event space would be horizontal with respect to the direction graphically that the events are 'projecting' through the superpositions. So you could say there really is vertical causation which that Minkowski diagram shows by taking an axial view down the Y (time axis), generating the venn diagram. The vertical perspective is what generates the venn diagram.

There is more I want to say, but I don't have time at the moment. I think this CTMU framework could be something very useful for further discussion generally, because we now essentially have the Scholastic/Neo-Platonist mode in addition to two modern ways of discussing this, in Smith/Borella and CTMU. The more useful analogy we have the better.

I am particularly interested in how Langan's conspansion theory ties in with Kabbalistic cosmology. Langan would want to describe these layers as stacked self-simulation, but it strikes me this meshes nicely with emanation through the Sephira, and I'd be interested to work with how Langan's cognitive-physical depiction speaks with the spiritual properties of Kabbalah. Of course, they're interested in different ontological domains, but I'm tempted to see the former as a continuation of the latter.

@KingOfWhiteAmerica

Also King, I have no idea what your new language is all about, but it sounds interesting. I'd like to know more about why it's supposed to maximize the ability to express meaning.