Isaac
Well-known member
Study other philosophies like the KybalionI appreciate it.
And yeah, I doubt he is involved with the church. The initial resources he sent me to look at were from freezone sources.
I'm interested in the philosophy and it's practical application, and then whether there really is a *human soul* & what this indicates about reality.
Originally, I found Chris Langan's CTMU the most compelling argument but the mathematical formalization of his argument either doesn't exist or hasn't been published by Langan. Most people misinterpret the CTMU without more thorough study or background in metaphysics & logic, but I will try to explain it briefly (this may be some heavy metaphysics for some):
So far that languages such as those used in speech or mathematics can be used to make deductions about reality, we can infer facts about reality from facts about languages.
Reality must be self-confined by definition of reality - if it were confined by something else, that would be included in reality. Therefore, the language describing reality as a total must be self-referential.
Langan leaps to the conclusion that in order for a finite language to be self-referential & consistent, it must reconfigure itself & evolve, otherwise statements can be generated by this language without a decidable status of true/false. This self-configuration allows undecidable statements such as 'this statement is false' to be defined by the language. However, new undecidable statements can now be made, and the language continues to evolve & self-configure. One example Langan gives is Godel's incompleteness theorems. There are arguments that Godel's theorems only apply to peano arithmetic, and I cannot find Langan's formalization of this generalization - I don't believe it has been published or otherwise exists.
The way that reality is realized is naturally by perception, for perception is what 'decides' the truth value of something - or else it isn't perceivable. For example, schrodinger's cat is an example of an 'undecidable phenomena' which upon perceiving gives it a truth value.
So the language of reality must continuously evolve, configuring itself & processing itself (self-referential), and therefore reality evolves. Hence, the example of schrodinger's cat.
Langan argues that consciousness is self-configuring & self-processing, and so this characteristic of reality's language implies that reality is conscious. There is a primary consciousness - reality/god, & there are secondary consciousness - e.g. humans. Both reconfigure the language of reality through the process of perception.
Langan's argument for the spiritual is by far the most first-principle & grounded I have ever seen. The issue with his argument IMO is that it isn't rigorous enough. Until we see more formal arguments put forth regarding language, or some substantial evidence of a workability unique to the CTMU, it is simply a brilliant thought.
Hubbard on the other hand, is very inarticulate. For someone who has courses on communication, it's pretty funny. I wonder if there are specific hypnotic techniques he is using that inadvertently obfuscate the meaning e.g. repeating specific words. Otherwise, I wonder if the obfuscation is intentional. Hubbard does have some intelligent views on some things, but I wonder how much of it is original or coincidence. He may seem to plagiarize other works, but this doesn't necessarily indicate falsity - there may be fine differences or levels of understanding he presents that are not in the original works. For example, someone without a thorough familiarity will mistakenly accuse the CTMU of similarity with other works without realizing that what they've identified is just one thing that has similarity or consistency with one piece of the CTMU.
My friend questions that the conservation of energy is an assumption which he believes is a component of the CTMU. i don't subscribe to the CTMU for reasons given, but I think it is a useful point of comparison to Hubbard's ideas given it's proximity to first principles. I've found some disagreements between them & similarities. Two points of interest at the moment for me are:
-Life is a game (this would illuminate the applicability of language to the CTMU)
-Attention creates space & identity closes this space. (possible semantic differences or actual differences between Hubbard & CTMU).
At the moment, I'm working on these points of interest, so I was wondering what others might think of these two statements:
1. life is a game
2. attention creates space & identity closes space.
Hermedic Philosophy’s
HeremesTristmagistist
“Three initiates” Chanel on you tube
Studying this will lead you to other studies
and increase your awareness
Hubbard copied some good stuff from these teachings
He got ideas for processes here imo
Last edited: