The Conspansive Duality, "whoa" said Neo

F

Fork

Banned
Banned
Conspansive duality is one of several duality principles in the CTMU.

On the surface, conspansive duality says that there is no difference between the expansion of the universe with respect to its contents, and the contraction of its contents with respect to it. This follows from the self-containment of reality. If there were an external scale by which to measure reality, the external scale would itself be real and therefore internal to reality (a contradiction). Hence the real universe has no external size; it can only be measured internally, by the size ratio of the system to its contents. Since the ratio is all that matters, expansion of the universe is equivalent to a contraction of its contents.

At a deeper level, conspansive duality relates two complementary views of the universe, the conventional geometric model and a dual generative model, by conjoining the "ectomorphism" of the former with the endomorphism of the latter.

Cosmic expansion and ordinary physical motion have something in common: they are both what might be called ectomorphisms. In an ectomorphism, something is mapped to, generated or replicated in something external to it. However, the Reality Principle asserts that the universe is analytically self-contained, and ectomorphism is inconsistent with self-containment. Through the principle of conspansive duality, ectomorphism is conjoined with endomorphism, whereby things are mapped, generated or replicated within themselves.[1]

http://ctmucommunity.org/wiki/Conspansive_duality

This is absolutely correct. Reality is internal.
 
The Cognitive-Theoretic Model of the Universe or CTMU (pronounced "cat-mew") is a philosophical theory of the relationship between mind and reality. Its author, Christopher Michael Langan, has been billed as "the smartest man in America", with an IQ reported by 20/20 and other media sources to have been measured at around 195. Langan created the CTMU in the mid-1980s while working as a bar bouncer on Long Island. Among his claims for the theory are that it constitutes absolute truth, provides the logical framework of a Theory of Everything, and proves the existence of God.
Click to expand...

Your comprehensive source for nonsense.
 
Don't confuse ambiguity with genius. As Einstein said, if you can't explain your theory to your own grandmother, then you probably don't understand it well enough yourself.
 
The expansion of the unverse is between glactic clusters. Within galaxies there is no expansion. If everything was contracting, photon frequencies would have to increase, since wavelengths would need to contract.
 
@Fork.
On the surface, conspansive duality says that there is no difference between the expansion of the universe with respect to its contents, and the contraction of its contents with respect to it.
Click to expand...
Like the thread title stated...Whoa!!!
What this single sentence of words actually states and implies would normally take a few books to explain to any one not conversant.
We had a poster here a while ago posting in the pseudo science section, who unfortunately due to ill health couldn't contain the insight he was trying to explain.
He was explaining that the universe was contracting and not expanding due to the fact that the more it expanded the smaller or more narrow his observer state became.
What he was referring to, I interpreted, was a discarded "deflation" theory that is in a conspansive relationship with inflation theory.
How ever it seemed to come down to a matter of perspective.
If one is to subscribe to the mortal human perspective the universe may indeed appear to be expanding if taking the perspective from with in however if one shifts perspective to the external POV then one may conclude that the contents of the universe are "shrinking" *?* then if one takes the perspective of an eternal God [conspansive duality POV] it is doing neither because it is doing both simultaneously. [as there is no "outside of the universe"]

The thing that I wanted to say is that mind/reality or CTMU I believe has some well founded ideas but to fully explain it in a way that forums such as this can cope would not only be foolish but ultimately futile due to the serious mental gymnastics required to accommodate the full ramifications of such a concept. Due to it's penetration of the core of our own self identity. [fear paranoid reactions would be common outcomes]
Posters such as AlexG etc are not really into doing to much gymnastics and to be honest given the nature of your subject I am not surprised that they may wish to defend other peoples right to not being so challenged.

Any ways just some thoughts

edit: Just having a scan read of the CTMU primer.......wow and you call that a primer...sheesh! my sceintific jargon thesaurus has just had a melt down... [chuckle]
 
Last edited:
To expand and example what I was trying to say:
imagine a simple scenario:
Man jumps out of plane at 30000ft no parachute..ok?
cognitive pov's:

1] Man is "falling" to earth at a rate determined by blah blah blah!
2] Man is "shrinking" to earth at a rate of Blah blah blah!

Both views are discussing the nature of Gravity.
Both views are bound by cognitive observation.
Yet both views are incredibly different in their implications.
Can one truly consider gravity in relative terms any way?!
If not how is "falling" a valid interpretive observation?

Or the question:

What is the inertial status of an iron object caught in a strong magnetic field?
It is one with the field or is it still in an existential duality?

These sorts of question are the sorts of questions that open the door to future understandings but are really really hard to convey in a way that dos not force the reader into a severe case of performing mental gymnastics as they attempt to work with their inherent and conditioned belief systems.
 
Magical Realist said:
Don't confuse ambiguity with genius. As Einstein said, if you can't explain your theory to your own grandmother, then you probably don't understand it well enough yourself.
Click to expand...
so ...his grandmother could fully understand GR, SRT and all the ramifications? eh... I bet not... :)
 
mathman said:
The expansion of the unverse is between glactic clusters. Within galaxies there is no expansion. If everything was contracting, photon frequencies would have to increase, since wavelengths would need to contract.
Click to expand...

Of course. But you'd have to consider the affects on relativity.
 
Quantum Quack said:
so ...his grandmother could fully understand GR, SRT and all the ramifications? eh... I bet not... :)
Click to expand...
There's a difference between understanding the conceptual framework and understanding how to do explicit calculations. The quote refers to the former, not the latter. Besides, how many hacks here claim to understand relativity or quantum mechanics but cannot do a single quantitative calculation in either? Farsight claims he understands QFT better than Nobel Prize winners yet he is functionally enumerate.

Thread moved to alternative theories since Langdan's CTMU is BS.
 
The CTMU process called "conspansion" involves two phases, inner expansion and requantization. During requantization, space and time scales are adjusted in unision, so that everything is synchronously rescaled. That is, there is an inbuilt grammatical function such that the equation "action = energy x time" remains constant. The existence of this function has been empirically confirmed by the fact that Planck's constant is not observed to change over time. To verify the contrary assumption, on the other hand, one would have to demonstrate the impossibility of an observational model of the CTMU incorporating such a function. Even if one could execute such a proof, it couldn't be accepted from an unverified source. DrL 18:04, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
Click to expand...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Cognitive-Theoretic_Model_of_the_Universe

"Action = energy x time" is correct. Space and time are both real.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top