|
Hello,
I really don't get on this site often but my boyfriend plays Brood War and I often see him on this site, so I decided to post here.
A little about me:
I'm a senior studying physics at a local university. I currently hold a 4.0 GPA. Last year I applied to Berkley SETI for an internship but got denied.
I stumbled upon Christopher Langan's Cognitive-Theoretic Model of the Universe (CTMU).
I don't feel compelled to argue with a man that holds an IQ of 194 so I was wondering if any of you out there reading this has read CTMU. I can argue this as a scientist in so many different ways, but not with someone considered "the smartest man in the world". This seems to me like a bunch of "word games", if even that. What are your thoughts? I'm sure there are many out there that probably hold PhD's in a physical science.
Also, If a moderator can move this post to the blog section if they think this is an appropriate post. Thanks!
-TrishLovesET
|
I haven't read "CTMU" but I know about Chris Langan. I guess you did some background reading on him but I urge you to stay away from the idea of genius. Yeah, some people (like Chris) have incredible abilities, and there are many others (e.g. Terry Tao), but simply having those abilities doesn't make your ideas necessarily better or even worthwhile.
I don't know anything about CTMU, but I've heard about Chris's "Theory of Everything" and stuff like this and on the outside it mostly sounds useless and/or is basic philosophy. I especially don't think there's any real physics to back it up, though I know he was studying that before dropping out.
On the other hand, I think it's awesome that you're studying physics and I highly encourage you to try for internships, scholarships, and grad schools. Just ask any of your profs if you can do some summer research with them. Talk to lots and lots of people and try to attend or present at some conferences. With some good letters of recommendation and a good GRE score you can get into a university that will be able to fund you while you kick about and do physics (awesome!).
|
Please link an article or something. I also have no idea why you posted your gpa.
BTW for perspective on this guy, he is that person who said that you can prove that we have souls using mathematics. He seems like a crazy person to me, because some of his other ideas are pretty out there. Just because he has a high IQ doesn't mean he is right, nor does it give extra credibility to his arguments.
|
meh, intelligent people aren't always intelligent.
|
@Chocolate, Here's the Link: http://www.ctmu.org/
I agree on Langan sounding crazy, It kind of reminded me of the alien "interview" done by Matilda O'Donell Macelroy. *sigh* I think I lost brain cells reading about 200 pages of that. What an imagination!
@ Oxygen, I agree with the genius idea and that IQ tests should not be measured. I actually don't believe in IQ tests or GPA's, so I don't know why I posted that. 10% or less of what I know I've learned through the American school system (although I am not American-I don't know why I posted that either, Chocolate...). I am mostly an autodidact so most of what I've learned has come from what I have taught myself. Einstein said it best "Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid."
We all have one thing we're good at. Just one.
My professor can get me an internship into a research institute in Texas. Here's the thing, I'm in Texas. This one of the most backward republican states in America. Not too good for science and math. Government cutbacks. I also hold an RN but do not lean toward the biological anymore. I haven't been looking into GRE, but I'm sure if I decide to get a PhD I should look into that.
|
|
|
I always lol when ppl say IQ is irrelevant. Our definitions of intelligence may still be in infancy, but still a person with an IQ of 190 will easily be able to appreciate things outside the realm of a normal person. The difference in "intelligence" between the average person and say Christopher Langan (194) is MORE than the difference in "intelligence" between the average person and a mentally retarded (clinically) person. Sure our definition of intelligence may be off right now, but that difference still exists.
some people are smart and some people are dumb and such is the way of life
|
BiologyMajor,
I'll ask you a question.
Are there more than one way to solve a math problem?
This conversation has gone the wrong path.
I was asking about any arguments on CTMU and it has turned into
"Why did you post your GPA?" And "I always lol at.."
*sigh*
I understand both points.. But...-.-
|
On September 14 2013 22:57 TrishLovesET wrote:
BiologyMajor,
I'll ask you a question.
Are there more than one ways to solve a math problem?
This conversation has gone the wrong path.
I was asking about any arguments on CTMU and it has turned into
"Why did you post your GPA?" And "I always lol at.."
*sigh*
I understand both points.. But...-.-
|
Surely if you couldn't summarize yourself, you could post a link to someone who has. At the very least, share some of your arguments instead of just saying you have them. If it's too technical to explain in layman's terms then this is probably not the right forum.
|
|
|
I read the introduction and it seems that the paper claims that since we always use language to describe and understand the world why not make a theory based on language.
It seems to be a logical leap that has been said before but maybe the paper explains itself better. I am not gonna read 50 pages though without seeing a synopsis or a reason to read it when I got school papers to read instead.
Personally I don't think humans are capable of understanding reality and we should worry more so about understanding what we can to generate useful models that can hopefully generate new technology.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
