Many have heard of the CTMU, but few seem to see it as much more than obscure nonsense. This is a massive shame. The Cognitive Theoretic Model of the Universe by Chris Langan is a profound assertion and perhaps the boldest leap forward in all of philosophical history. The most commonly stated criticism falls under two similar categories: [(1) Those who have attempted to understand it but have given up. (2) Those who glance at it once and gripe about the abundance of “made up words”.] I believe both parties could benefit from a sequential, logically-guided restatement of its main points. And that’s what I’ll attempt below. I will provide an overview of the CTMU’s conclusions that many people deem as “leaps of faith” or “sheer conjecture”. In terms of format, I will do a sort of Wittgensteinian list of facts and logical conclusions, presented by order of logical conclusion.

[1] If time is merely a result of a “tool” of perception, then it follows that, in the absence of perception, there need be no linearity or regularity of time.

[2] If there is no regularity of time then there need be no regularity of matter–at least not in the manner commonly conceived.

[3] Therefore, it can be said that perception brings a stable “external world” into existence.

[4] But this “external world” was not simply brought into existence as is normally conceived.

[5] Before this external world solidified, so to speak, there must have been a potential for its existence.

[6] Therefore, the “universe”–as opposed to an aggregate of all ‘actually existing things’–is simply: a sum of all potential “external worlds”, things currently existing, in addition to the method of bringing these things into existence.

[7] For a potential to be actualized or brought to the external world there must be some method of transmission between the potential and the actual.

[8] But as this transmission originates outside of linear time it is not composed of “matter”, as is traditionally conceived.

[9] If, as was stated above, perception brings a stable “external world” into existence, then there must “exist” within this sort of potential store something in common with perception, a sort of isomorphism or common ground.

[10] That which possesses an isomorphism to consciousness or “perception” is of a logical/linguistic nature, as there must be logical coherence between an object and a perceiver.

[11] There can be no form of reference or accessibility without a logical/linguistic structure.

[12] It is a logical contradiction for something to have potential yet not be referenceable or accessible.

[13] This potential–as with all else– can be accessible only through a logical/linguistic structure.

[14] Therefore, the sum of all potential “external worlds” must be of a logical/linguistic nature.

[15] Considering that this “store of potential” exists outside of time and space, traditional notions of causality do not apply.

[16] The only option left is self-causality or self-determinacy.

[17] If this self-determinacy is paired with the logical/linguistic nature of the “store of potential” then the universe must exist by logical necessity.

[18] If something determines its own existence and must exist out of logical necessity, then does the universe not resemble some notion of God?

These are the main cruxes of Langan’s CTMU, and (most)everything else contained within is a logical corollary of these cruxes. Simply, there are no leaps of faith or illogical stretches of thought.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s