Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Quick Links
The smartest man in America
//\//\oo
Member, Newbie CommonPosts: 2,767
"Christopher Michael Langan (born c. 1952) is an American autodidact whose IQ was reported by 20/20 and other media sources to have been measured at between 195 and 210.[1] Billed by some media sources as "the smartest man in America",[2] he rose to prominence in 1999 while working as a bouncer on Long Island. Langan has developed his own "theory of the relationship between mind and reality" which he calls the "Cognitive-Theoretic Model of the Universe (CTMU)".[3][4]"
Here is his famous interview:
Christopher Langan interview on youtube
Here is the intellectual society he belongs to:
How to prove you're a genius of his caliber:
His theory of everything:
www.megafoundation.org/CTMU/Articles/Langan_CTMU_092902.pdf
So what do you guys think of this guy? Is he really the smartest guy in America, or even the world? Maybe we should give him authority by electing him to office, since the guys in office aren't half as smart as this guy. Why are there even still atheists with this proof that god exists? I guess some people are just stupid.
This is a sequence of characters intended to produce some profound mental effect, but it has failed.
Comments
Do you mean that there is someone smaller and smarter than Mini Me????
'Smartest'? Why? Depends on his accomplishments.
To me 'smart' is a combination of knowledge and intelligence. With just the former we have a Jeopardy contestant. With just the latter we have that guy, a bouncer with no accomplishments (as of yet).
Even though his IQ is higher than Einstein's, what does he 'know' and what has he accomplished? Ultimately a high IQ can only lend a hand towards learning new things and developing new things worth learning.
I'm not saying he has to cure cancer, but I wouldn't call him 'smartest' anything until he's proven himself.
Does he have the ability to be the 'smartest'? Probably.
Are you stupid? His universal theory PROVES that god created the universe. You just lack the intelligence to grasp his ideas.
This is a sequence of characters intended to produce some profound mental effect, but it has failed.
Are you stupid? His universal theory PROVES that god created the universe. You just lack the intelligence to grasp his ideas.
I completely ignored the religious and political portions of your post, as you're in the wrong section for that. If you're going to push to talk about that, either repost there or wait for the thread to be moved.
Are you stupid? His universal theory PROVES that god created the universe. You just lack the intelligence to grasp his ideas.
Ok. I'll bite!
But is not the whole point of the god entitiy that he/she/it is un-provable?
As in beyond human comprehension?
So, in proving god, he actually dis-proves god?
That is, if conjecture were proof!
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Jerek_
I wonder if you honestly even believe what you type, or if you live in a made up world of facts.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Are you stupid? His universal theory PROVES that god created the universe. You just lack the intelligence to grasp his ideas.
Ok. I'll bite!
But is not the whole point of the god entitiy that he/she/it is un-provable?
As in beyond human comprehension?
So, in proving god, he actually dis-proves god?
That is, if conjecture were proof!
But what if he's not actually smart at all? Just really rich and bribed loads of people?! :O
We're all Geniuses. Most of us just don't know it.
Ok. I'll bite!
But is not the whole point of the god entitiy that he/she/it is un-provable?
As in beyond human comprehension?
So, in proving god, he actually dis-proves god?
That is, if conjecture were proof!
No, those are just conventions created by organized religions, since they lacked the intellectual faculties to prove god in a formal mathematical fashion like the great Langan did.
CLICK ON THE FUCKING PDF, BUT I DOUBT YOU HAVE THE GENIUS REQUIRED TO COMPREHEND THE MAGNITUDE OF THE GOD PROVING DISSERTATION (not really, since he's an autodidact who taught himself every science... why would he need a stupid piece of paper to prove what he already knows?) .
This is a sequence of characters intended to produce some profound mental effect, but it has failed.
You sound smart, but maybe you should watch the videos and look at the pdf first before you continue posting.
This is a sequence of characters intended to produce some profound mental effect, but it has failed.
Did that make sense in your head? Seriously.
But what if he's not actually smart at all? Just really rich and bribed loads of people?! :O
Another idiot who thinks he's not dumber than Langan..
I pity you, but you have a chance at redemption if you can prove yourself worthy by taking the titan test and getting a high score (it only costs 50$). Should you get a perfect score endless intelligence will be at your feet in the mega society ... and maybe then... just maybe.. you can become a moon master.
This is a sequence of characters intended to produce some profound mental effect, but it has failed.
Aye, in both.
This is a sequence of characters intended to produce some profound mental effect, but it has failed.
The whole eugenics part was disgusting and I quit watching there.
Take 2 of these and call me in the morning.
And please stop attacking people who disagree with you. Having a high IQ doesn't mean that you can't be wrong.
The guy who tried to criticize his theory is the crackpot; his IQ isn't even in the same range as Langan's. Let's see you come up with a theory for everything.... yeah? That's what I thought.
This is a sequence of characters intended to produce some profound mental effect, but it has failed.
The guy who tried to criticize his theory is the crackpot; his IQ isn't even in the same range as Langan's. Let's see you come up with a theory for everything.... yeah? That's what I thought.
IQ doesn't mean anything if you have no idea what you're talking about and the guy you linked, has no idea what he's talking about. The CTMU article was deleted from Wikipedia, for crying out loud.
I mean, you have to be really bad in order to get deleted from Wikipedia. lol
The guy mixed up the most defining element of his theory. Anyway, I'm done with this.
IQ doesn't mean anything if you have no idea what you're talking about and the guy you linked, has no idea what he's talking about. The CTMU article was deleted from Wikipedia, for crying out loud.
I mean, you have to be really bad in order to get deleted from Wikipedia. lol
The guy mixed up the most defining element of his theory. Anyway, I'm done with this.
Wikipedia is not even a real scientific source: You don't see people with Fields Medals and Nobel Prizes posting their results first on wikipedia, do you? It's ridiculous that you can even claim that his theory is invalid when you can't even understand it yourself: You're placing faith in other technical people to tell you what is right and what is wrong.
I doubt you have considered the possibility that they are merely scared atheists who are afraid of having their delicate understandings of reality blown away by harsh scientific reasoning.
This is a sequence of characters intended to produce some profound mental effect, but it has failed.
IQ doesn't mean anything if you have no idea what you're talking about and the guy you linked, has no idea what he's talking about. The CTMU article was deleted from Wikipedia, for crying out loud.
I mean, you have to be really bad in order to get deleted from Wikipedia. lol
The guy mixed up the most defining element of his theory. Anyway, I'm done with this.
Wikipedia is not even a real scientific source: You don't see people with Fields Medals and Nobel Prizes posting their results first on wikipedia, do you? It's ridiculous that you can even claim that his theory is invalid when you can't even understand it yourself: You're placing faith in other technical people to tell you what is right and what is wrong.
I doubt you have considered the possibility that they are merely scared atheists who are afraid of having their delicate understandings of reality blown away by harsh scientific reasoning.
I considered the possibility that you have no idea what you're talking about and were merely taken in by pretty word play used in his "theory."
BTW, my whole point of mentioning that Wikipedia deleted his article was specifically what you posted. Wikipedia is not a credible scientific source and even they deemed the article to be crackpot enough to delete it.
You sound smart, but maybe you should watch the videos and look at the pdf first before you continue posting.
Smart enough to know if my own posts are in the right forum section or not, yes.
I considered the possibility that you have no idea what you're talking about and were merely taken in by pretty word play used in his "theory."
BTW, my whole point of mentioning that Wikipedia deleted his article was specifically what you posted. Wikipedia is not a credible scientific source and even they deemed the article to be crackpot enough to delete it.
Well good thing that you've only considered it, because you have not yet shown that the theory is indeed invalid. Wikipedia is funded by atheists, which is why they took down all of the formal articles related to intelligent design.
So how can you tell that his theory is a crackpot and not a real development?
This is a sequence of characters intended to produce some profound mental effect, but it has failed.
I considered the possibility that you have no idea what you're talking about and were merely taken in by pretty word play used in his "theory."
BTW, my whole point of mentioning that Wikipedia deleted his article was specifically what you posted. Wikipedia is not a credible scientific source and even they deemed the article to be crackpot enough to delete it.
Well good thing that you've only considered it, because you have not yet shown that the theory is indeed invalid. Wikipedia is funded by atheists, which is why they took down all of the formal articles related to intelligent design.
So how can you tell that his theory is a crackpot and not a real development?
I linked the page which outlines why his theory is wrong starting with the fact that his math is absolutely wrong. It explains it better than I can. However, the main thing is that he writes about set theory but he actually describes naive set theory which are two different things. Naive set theory pretty much contradicts itself. So his whole theory is based on math that contradicts itself.
It's very well written though... It would make any college student green with envy. He takes a whole page to write something that can be explained in one or two sentences.
Why don't you explain to me why his theory is a real development and not a crackpot? And please don't bring up his IQ. The fact that he has a high IQ doesn't mean anything. We're discussing the theory, not the man.
I linked the page which outlines why his theory is wrong starting with the fact that his math is absolutely wrong. It explains it better than I can. However, the main thing is that he's wrote about set theory but he actually describes naive set theory which are two different things. Naive set theory pretty much contradicts itself. So his whole theory is based on math that contradicts itself.
It's very well written though... It would make any college student green with envy. He takes a whole page to write something that can be explained in one or two sentences.
Why don't you explain to me why his theory is a real development and not a crackpot? And please don't bring up his IQ. The fact that he has a high IQ doesn't mean anything. We're discussing the theory, not the man.
That interpretation is false: He explains a common result known as the Cantor's theorem in ZFC, which states that the cardinality of a set is strictly less than it's power set; he also explains why in our universe the fact that set theory (ZFC) allows for there to be a set greater than that means that it would have to be altered. He assumes that you already know that there cannot be a set of all sets, which is why he doesn't bother to mention it. So there is nothing inconsistent about that part of his theory.
His theory is a real development, because it's the first attempt to try and tie in mathematical logic with reality in a formal manner; right now what we know about the physical world and what we can conceive mentally are at odds: His work ties both worlds together.
This is a sequence of characters intended to produce some profound mental effect, but it has failed.
I linked the page which outlines why his theory is wrong starting with the fact that his math is absolutely wrong. It explains it better than I can. However, the main thing is that he's wrote about set theory but he actually describes naive set theory which are two different things. Naive set theory pretty much contradicts itself. So his whole theory is based on math that contradicts itself.
It's very well written though... It would make any college student green with envy. He takes a whole page to write something that can be explained in one or two sentences.
Why don't you explain to me why his theory is a real development and not a crackpot? And please don't bring up his IQ. The fact that he has a high IQ doesn't mean anything. We're discussing the theory, not the man.
That interpretation is false: He explains a common result known as the Cantor's theorem in ZFC, which states that the cardinality of a set is strictly less than it's power set; he also explains why in our universe the fact that set theory (ZFC) allows for there to be a set greater than that means that it would have to be altered. He assumes that you already know that there cannot be a set of all sets, which is why he doesn't bother to mention it. So there is nothing inconsistent about that part of his theory.
His theory is a real development, because it's the first attempt to try and tie in mathematical logic with reality in a formal manner; right now what we know about the physical world and what we can conceive mentally are at odds: His work ties both worlds together.
I'm not going to argue math with you because I just don't remember a lot of it. From what I remember though, ZFC does not allow for a set of all sets (universal set) as it leads to Russell's Paradox. But the author is talking about exactly that: a universal set - a set that contains everything including itself. Which means he's using naive set theory, which is a really bad way to try and explain the universe because it contradicts itself. BTW, wasn't ZFC created in order to avoid naive set theory and Cantor's Paradox in the first place?
From what I've seen the guy is using contradictory (and outdated) math and confusing writing in order to further his Intelligent Design agenda. You know what his writing reads like? Like he's trying too hard to sound intelligent. There is too much word play and not enough substance.
A cursory look on Google showed that none of the PhD's, who commented on this guy, take him seriously. Most consider his theory to be nonsense and his writing pure drivel. Maybe their IQ are not high enough to understand him?
While I don't doubt his intelligence, it is a known fact that he took the Mega Test twice. First time under the pseudonym "Eric Hart" and the second time under his real name. Which is not allowed because the test doesn't change. Besides that, Mega accepts results from unsupervised tests.
Ok. I'll bite!
But is not the whole point of the god entitiy that he/she/it is un-provable?
As in beyond human comprehension?
So, in proving god, he actually dis-proves god?
That is, if conjecture were proof!
No, those are just conventions created by organized religions, since they lacked the intellectual faculties to prove god in a formal mathematical fashion like the great Langan did.
CLICK ON THE FUCKING PDF, BUT I DOUBT YOU HAVE THE GENIUS REQUIRED TO COMPREHEND THE MAGNITUDE OF THE GOD PROVING DISSERTATION (not really, since he's an autodidact who taught himself every science... why would he need a stupid piece of paper to prove what he already knows?) .
I did read his theory of everything paper, the last time it was posted on this site, some odd years ago.
I read it again now, and yes I doubt I have the genius to comprehend the magnitude of that paper.
But, I am fairly intelligent, and, judging from your posts, i am WAY smarter than you!
So that poses the question, does understanding, ( or rather accepting without having a clue such as seems to be the case with you ) his paper require intelligence, or faith?
Statements like "stupid piece of paper" is not uncommon among the book burning part of the population.
Although I am glad to see that the ID people finally adapted the "smarter then you" argument, it actually makes debates like this a lot more fun!
But as have been posted, this thread should be moved!
Let us continue this in the rigth place.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Jerek_
I wonder if you honestly even believe what you type, or if you live in a made up world of facts.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is a sequence of characters intended to produce some profound mental effect, but it has failed.
I think you should think really hard before posting, because it has gone way beyond you at this point if you think it is remotely religious or political.
I'd like to think IQ tests could be derived from random people on the interwebs reading forum posts, but fortunately it doesn't work that way.
This is a sequence of characters intended to produce some profound mental effect, but it has failed.