The CTMU is Science

Here as I see it of the CTMU I will lay down the eminently deserving claim that The Cognitive-Theoretic Model of the Universe (CTMU) is Inside of ‘Science’ however One defines the term.

The CTMU is Science - Saturday July 29th, 2023

Here as I see it of the CTMU I will lay down the eminently deserving claim that The Cognitive-Theoretic Model of the Universe (CTMU) is Inside of ‘Science’ however One defines the term.

Critics in the ‘that’s not science’ camp cannot consistently define what Science in Fact Is.

We in the CTMU are not troubled by such qualms as We Know What Science is in its many multi-faces. With this contention at the outset, settle in for Apologetics and All-Critical Determination of the CTMU as Science.

I used to think that the CTMU was simply a Nice Metaphysic and then short-circuited this into science, claiming as I did that philosophy is part of science. However true this remains, many in My audience are unconvinced and make attacks against the CTMU as ‘that’s not science’ squawkers.

The most common attack goes like this:

“How can we test the CTMU?”

“Does CTMU make any verifiable or falsifiable claims.”

Not to be too snarky but I would answer the First question by ‘You Can Start By Reading it!’ Then chuckle to Myself that they simply won’t be able to muster the effort to become a serious contender [and this by the way is true of so many tenured professors].

Then they get angry and say ‘It’s Word Salad’ which in truth means that they lack necessary abilities or talents or discipline of concentration And Big-Picture Perspective.

How can We Test the CTMU, well…Read it and find corroboration first within the logical. If I wrote down a hypothesis that 2+2=4 then You asked Me to prove it without counting on Your Own fingers beforehand—I’d have to say that You’re being lazy, and intellectually dishonest.

How Can We Test It? Just Like in Theoretical Physics sometimes laboratory tests are only concocted 20 years later with enough time and money. Fortunately the CTMU has the quality of Induction and Deduction, so again read it and You will note that it works from inference of logical properties and both inducts and deducts conclusions. Such as the Reality Principle which says that there must be a ‘final regress’ In Which All that Can be Is. How Can We Test this? Read it over again and Think about it. It [The Reality Principle] is a Hypothesis that Has to be Correct in Order for Some Level of Reality to Be Real. You can Deny it to be true. But at some point this denial looks an awful lot like burying Your Head in the Sand. The Reality Principle draws a box and says Reality is contained therein, but the Box it draws is Logically Ultimate by Definition. So if You draw a box outside the box and say ‘Look the Reality Box isn’t Final’ We will laugh and Say “You just threw a dot inside of the Box that We already conceived of” Or “You Didn’t Understand What We Meant ‘Final Regress.’”

How Can it be tested? Is akin to saying “How Can We test the Word ‘Inference.’” Well it has a semantical and syntax properties that I Glean When I Read it such that I understand what the Word Means. If You can’t Understand it, then I suggest You open a dictionary and start reading on epistemology. In this Way Langan’s CTMU is simply a statement that is true. Like saying about Positivism: “This Paper Intends to Use Inference, Induction and Deduction and Logical Reasoning to Represent Reality. It is Positivist, but also works by negation to establish Positive Truths.” But Then the critics cry ‘But Nothing Positive can be established By It.’ Well We Beg to Differ and this is what is Meant By Chris’s Use of ‘Super-Tautology.’

As a Super-tautology His Work in the CTMU is Inferential, Inductive, Deductive, and Logical and You’re Saying that is cannot establish anything Positive. We Beg to Differ.

Engage Your Brain and You Might See How powerful and inexorable this is.

99.9% of Papers and Studies that are culled and called under the label of Science are not nearly as Certain as the CTMU.

Say a Social Scientist Gets together a study with 2,000 participants and uses every kind of regression analysis. His is considered scientific if someone else can replicate it. But Usually major studies are not replicated Or are replicated with Much Bending and Manipulation of Data. Yet Chris Utilizing, then Pointing, to a Supertautology that is just as certain as the statement on Positivism that I said above is decried as unscientific. Well I’m sorry to disappoint You but Chris’s Findings Are More General and Replicable than any FDA Published ‘Science’ which by the way goes Into Your Body. You Trust this Science because You have No Choice.

You Do have a Choice as to assent to Chris’s Science and All it takes is some mental elbow Grease. How Can We Test It? Start by Reading It.

And On that Note the CTMU is Making Full and Replete Verifiable Claims, And these are Falsifiable Yes, but they are not so happening then to be False. For Example Try to Falsify the Reality Principle, You’ll just need to invert logic. What then is Logic not Falsifiable and therefore Unscientific according to Karl Popper? Without Logic You cannot even formulate a coherent sentence. Christ formulates a logic and They immediately don’t understand what He’s saying and complain ‘that’s not falsifiable, so that’s not science.’ Well neither is logic or a true sentence false, I wouldn't say that it is ‘not falsifiable’ but maybe Your application of falsifiability is itself corrupted and in need of an ethics test.

Chris makes such fundamental claims to Epistemology as to establish the Method By which I can formulate a coherent Sentence; But Sure, discard this with half-baked and partial perspectives and ill-fitting or unfleshed-out definitions of ‘science’ and then gasp out loud that We’re the Ones Not being Scientific.

Just As Inference is a part of Science, Chris is Establishing One Big Inference. Foundational Science is All the More a Part of Science than the particularities of specific studies. The Specific studies calling the Foundation ‘Not of Science’ is like the Toes/Fingers calling the Head Inhuman.

With this Said I hope That Those of You Who are literate enough to undertake reading the CTMU now have a good apologetic to function for You when dealing with the Toes/Fingers, the ‘that’s not science’ squawkers. All the Best, - Greg