So, what's Yea Forums's opinion on The Smartest Man In America?

>Can you sketch the CTMU — in plain English — for our readers?

The name literally says it all. The phrase “Cognitive-Theoretic Model of the Universe” contains three main ingredients: cognitive theory, model, and universe. Cognitive theory refers to a general language of cognition (the structural and transitional rules of cognition); universe refers to the content of that language, or that to which the language refers; and model refers to the mapping which carries the content into the language, thus creating information. The way in which the title brings these three ingredients together, or “contracts” their relationship to the point of merging, reflects their perfect coincidence in that to which the title implicitly refers, i.e., reality (the physical universe plus all that is required to support its perception and existence). Thus, the CTMU is a theory which says that reality is a self-modeling universal language, or if one prefers, that the universe is a self-modeling language.

The operation of combining language, universe, and model to create a perfectly self-contained metalanguage results in SCSPL, short for Self-Configuring Self-Processing Language. This language is “self-similar” in the sense that it is generated within a formal identity to which every part of it is mapped as content; its initial form, or grammatical “start symbol”, everywhere describes it on all scales. My use of grammatical terminology is intentional; in the CTMU, the conventional notion of physical causality is superseded by “telic causation”, which resembles generative grammar and approaches teleology as a natural limit. In telic causation, ordinary events are predicated on the generation of closed causal loops distributing over time and space. This loop-structure reflects the fact that time, and the spatial expansion of the cosmos as a function of time, flow in both directions – forward and backward, outward and inward – in a dual formulation of causality characterizing a new conceptualization of nature embodied in a new kind of medium or “manifold”.

That’s as simple as I can make it without getting more technical. Everything was transparently explained in the 56-page 2002 paper I published on the CTMU, which has been downloaded hundreds of thousands of times. But just in case this still doesn’t qualify as “plain English”, there’s an even easier way to understand it that is available to any reader familiar with the Bible, one of the most widely read and best-understood books ever written.

In the New Testament, John 1 begins as follows: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God” (my italics). Much controversy has centered on this passage, as it seems to be saying that God is literally equivalent to logos, meaning “word”, “wisdom”, “reason”, or “truth”. Insofar as these meanings all refer to constructs or ingredients of language or to language itself, this amounts to the seemingly imponderable assertion that God, of Whom believers usually conceive as an all-powerful Entity or Being, somehow consists of language. The CTMU is precisely what it takes to validate this assertion while preserving the intuitive conception of God as the all-knowing Creator – or in non-theological terms, the “identity” or “generator” – of reality. Nothing but the CTMU can fully express this biblical “word-being duality” in a consistent logico-mathematical setting.

The CTMU is not just a theory; it is logical model theory applied to metaphysics, and as much a logical necessity as any branch of mathematics or philosophy. One can no more escape from it than from X=X or 1+1=2. But when it comes to something that packs this combination of scope and power, many people, including certified academics, committed atheists, and even some religious believers, are apparently afraid to stare X=X in the face.

Little wonder. After all, once one has beheld the metaphysical structure of reality, there is no longer any such thing as plausible deniability or defense by ignorance; it’s the end of innocence, so to speak. Understandably, many people find that a little scary.

He looks like Betty from Kung Pow

Attached: b40c70c6b6841cf24586fa7a8a69c762ddf7f6de_full.jpg (184x184, 6K)

It's not that it's "hard to read". It's that the vast majority of it unintelligible. Just because something uses technical terms, that doesn't mean it's garbage. However, I made the sentence "Myocentroptic bilateral geneplexes are forthright that which shouldn't violate NJD law, subseducing with great friviocy and subdiliquiences, that very PTI celeric which previously having been disclosed are now considered canon," the problem wouldn't be "durrr you just can't read it. PrOvE iT faLse"... You can't because it means nothing and is nothing.

The "muh science" thing is bullshit too. If you don't want scientists telling you it doesn't make scientific sense, then what the fuck are you looking for? Why are you seeking validation from autists on Yea Forums if the real knowledgeable people on the topic have said it's ridiculous?? Are you retarded?

Kill yourself bugman
Post body

seems like a fair assessment
So far it reads like an analytic philosopher trying to mathematize Deleuze's metaphysics
not that that's a bad thing, it's pretty interesting

ok...

Attached: 1552692052926.jpg (500x750, 83K)

I'm smrater than him I just havnt ben published yet because theyre too stupid to udnerstand my works.

It sounds more Hegelian/Wittgensteinian than Deleuzian to me.

And mental illness stemming from childhood trauma. The tragedy of personality disorders is they’re like parasites that feed on misery tricking their hosts into self-destructive decisions. “I chose this for x reason”. No your parasite did and fed you that line of bullshit you’re willing to die for.

I don't think it's any more unintelligble than Hegel

Prominent among the tools of epistemology are the axiomatic method (associated with rationalism, deduction, and mathematics), and the scientific method (associated with empiricism, induction, and the physical sciences). The axiomatic method derives theorems from axioms, but if different axioms are chosen, then contrary theorems can be obtained (consider Euclidean vs. non-Euclidean geometry). The scientific method infers laws from observations, but future observations can break these laws (creating the problem of induction). Such methodological limitations seem to suggest that all knowledge is relative: to axioms which may not characterize our reality, or to observations which give only a partial view of the world.

The CTMU is an attempt to circumvent these limitations and achieve absolute knowledge. Langan writes:

"What I mean by 'absolute' is precisely this: (1) you can't relativize your way out of it by changing the context; (2) finding it in error equates to destroying your own basis for inference. These criteria are built into the theory from the ground up using some very effective, that is to say ironclad, techniques. Logically, there is no way out."
To see how this could work, consider the concept of a logical tautology. In 2-valued logic, a tautology is a statement that is true under every assignment of "true" and "false" to the variables within it. For example, "A or not-A" (the law of the excluded middle) is a tautology because it is true regardless of whether A is true or false. Langan argues that all meaningful theories conform to 2-valued logic,[18] and that because the axioms and theorems of 2-valued logic are tautological, tautologies "define the truth concept for all of the sciences. From mathematics and physics to biology and psychology, logical tautologies reign supreme and inviolable".

Langan further holds that logical tautologies constitute absolute knowledge in the sense of his criteria above.[19] That is, where "changing the context" amounts to changing truth assignments to contextual variables, tautologies are true in every context. And where "your own basis for inference" includes 2-valued logic, logically disproving a tautology requires use of the tautology itself, undermining the inference. Accordingly Langan calls tautologies self-evident or "self-proving".[20]

Langan's project is to formulate a theory of reality that possesses absolute truth in the same sense as does a logical tautology, but is also able to say something substantial about the world. Carrying out this project requires definitional principles that relate logic to reality:

Specifically, in order to fashion a reality theory that has the truth property in the same sense as does logic, but permits the logical evaluation of statements about space and time and law, we must adjoin principles of extension that lend meaning to such statements while preserving the tautology property.[21]
Langan makes use of three such principles (described below), adjoining them to logic and extracting the implications. The resulting theory (the CTMU) Langan calls a "supertautology": the reality-theoretic counterpart of a tautology.[22]

Unlike ordinary scientific theories, which rely on observation to establish their correspondence with reality and are always at risk of falsification, the CTMU is intended by construction to correspond with reality necessarily. In fact, claims Langan, "any other valid theory of reality will necessarily equate to the CTMU up to isomorphism; whatever it adds will come by way of specificity, not generality".[23] Verification of the CTMU is made "largely rationalistic" by its logical nature, so that "much of the theory has to be proven like a math theorem rather than confirmed on a lab bench".

In the CTMU, reality takes the form of an algebraic structure Langan calls a "Self-Configuring Self-Processing Language" or SCSPL.[24] The CTMU blends elements of various branches of advanced mathematics, including category theory, model theory, computation theory, abstract algebra, and the logic of formalized theories. Langan's public writings are meant to be relatively accessible, and for that reason, he says, tend to avoid heavy use of symbolic notation in favor of informal characterization. Nonetheless, he claims, the CTMU is axiomatizable and formalizable, SCSPL is well-defined, and he "can reduce that entire 56 page paper to variables and functional, operational and relational symbols".

Some more examples:

Questions like "why and how does reality exist?" and "why does this reality exist instead of some other reality?" are typically answered in one of two ways:

Reality "just exists", and no further explanation is needed or can be given.
Reality exists due to the influence of something outside of it, an external creator.
Langan opposes both views, arguing that were reality to lack an explanation, it would lack the structure needed to enforce its own consistency, whereas for an external creator to create reality, the creator itself would have to be real, and therefore inside reality by definition, contradicting the premise.[30]

The CTMU treats the origin of reality in the context of freedom and constraint. Concepts are defined by constraints specifying their structure, and structure requires explanation. Consequently, Langan argues, every concept requires explanation except the "terminal concept" with no constraints, and no structure to explain. In the CTMU, this terminal concept or "ontological groundstate" is called "unbound telesis" or UBT.[31]

Because UBT is a medium of pure potential, everything is possible within it. This means that anything which is able to "recognize itself" as existing, will in fact exist from its own vantage. However, the requirements for doing so are, asserts Langan, more stringent than is normally supposed. Because UBT is unstructured, the only possibilities which can actualize from it are those with sufficient internal structure to create and configure themselves. So in the CTMU, reality, rather than being uncaused or externally caused, is self-caused, and constrained by the structure it needs to create and configure itself, that of SCSPL.

The above reasoning, holds Langan, resolves the ex nihilo or "something-from-nothing" paradox. The paradox arises when "nothing" is taken to exclude not just "something", but the potential for "something". Because exclusion of potential is a constraint, "nothing" in this sense requires its own explanation, and cannot serve as an ontological groundstate. But when "nothing" is viewed as unconstrained potential or UBT,[32] asserts Langan, reality arises inevitably from it.

I'm not saying this guy is right or anything. But his writing is not really subpar relative to established academia. I guess his arrogant tone and being a proponent of intelligent design as well as the fact that his theory is a "grand narrative" all play against him ever being taken seriously by academia (on top of the fact that he has no real academic credentials). But the only thing really to be seen here is an easy example of academia being a political structure before anything else.

From the little bit I’ve read of what he says, it’s just your average shoat with a nice lacquering of lancôme on its snoot

If anything I think it's a good exercise to see how ideology works in everyday life. Because we know this is written by a "nobody", with somewhat arrogant tone and with a theory that proposes God, we all get that uneasy feeling in our stomachs that makes us proclaim this guy as a total hack.

However, it is not really all that difficult to imagine this being hailed as a revolutionary genius if it was written by a top-school intellectual and with an agnostic or atheistic outlook.

Wrong. There’s no discovery in his work. It’s rhetorical ultimately.

His theories, background, and approach seem to suggest that he is unable to see his own identity as a person as being more than just his intelligence. He overvalues logic as a tool to justify a sense of total superiority towards others, and approaches problems as a means of being a savior or hero. It has to be a totally logical theory of everything so that HE was the only one who could figure it out.
I'm not as smart as he is though, and I know how lonely and alienating it is to be very intelligent. I feel bad for him mostly, I don't think I would want to have an IQ that high.

What discovery did Hegel make? What discovery are modern string theorists making?

That's beside the point. The only thing separating this guy from being hailed as a revolutionary genius rather than a nutjub are academic credentials and a more academia-friendly tone. That should raise some concerns.

to me this just sounds like the correspondence theory of truth spelled out in the tlp blown up into a metaphysics and mystical vision. instead of wittgenstein, it's god wielding his world-writing pen; or enchanting himself and the cosmos into existence simultaneously.
very 'ehhhhhh...'

i mean, that's part of his personal marketing narrative
but is it true?

It is because he is missing the point. The math can only explain a story (truth), it can't generate it. The story can't be proved, so no matter how much beautiful complex mathematical logic he dumps into it the scientific and spiritual proof will never appear. Regardless, if the math is unable to be understood by the reader, than what faith can it truly inspire?

I'd argue it is. Not because he is great but because it's not particularly hard to find well-respected academics with inferior output. For example I don't see what exactly distinguishes a guy like Quentin Meillassoux from Langan. At least not in the quality of their work

i dont think he is trying to be a missionairy

This is actually pretty interesting.

It seems his problem is that he is doing metaphysics, a discipline most mathematicians and scientists largely don't bother with.

"Christopher Michael Langan is an American independent scholar known for his claim of having a very high IQ" lmao

It sounds really interesting but I fear that it will ultimately end up being strictly formal, ie a much too general formalism without actual power of prediction or deduction.

It's also amusing how his UBT is reminding of the unmoved mover.
That said I could totally see something like this come out of a very isolted analytic philosophy department.

It must be my brainletism, but I can't make heads or tails out of this shit. It's timecube-tier, to me.

>i dont think he is trying to be a missionairy
So what is he publishing for? Money? He wants fame and adoration. I wasn't talking about faith in God, but faith in his theory (which includes God). CTMU is an attempt to conquer Truth with math, to wrap everything up with a bow on top (and his name on it). Math is only a tool for describing Truth though, it cannot generate anything new. The only "Truth" in math is the axioms it operates on. You can't create a new math axiom with math, otherwise it wouldn't be new.

Attached: Chris Langan's answer to Does Chris Langan's CTMU give rise to any kind of physical predic (645x995, 172K)

This is why you learn Latin, my dear.

You don't but trained academics do

LMAO. So only academia is in the position to comment on academia.

That's not what I said ;)

I don't like this guy based on his tone/demeanor so I tried extra hard to find something he said that is blatantly retarded but it just doesn't really exist. His propositions are too generalized/unfalsifiable and remind me of people who think they are smart but were never able to make any money for themselves.

Maybe it's my fault for being retarded, but what he says literally doesn't mean anything, I don't understand what his "theory" is because it surely doesn't mean "language" in the sense of actual language, right? That sounds dumb. On the other hand everything else he's saying is just some sort of understanding of "reality" that people already implicitly have, except for
>This loop-structure reflects the fact that time, and the spatial expansion of the cosmos as a function of time, flow in both directions – forward and backward, outward and inward – in a dual formulation of causality characterizing a new conceptualization of nature embodied in a new kind of medium or “manifold”.
which I don't have the mathematical knowledge to dismiss but it sounds wack.

why don't you tell me by the way in what way is Langan's work inferior to Meillassoux's? Other than the fact that the latter likely got buttfucked by Badiou? academia is an incestoid project of nepotistic and hereditary buttfuckery, just like most things in life. even academics themselves don't even bother to pretend anymore that there exists some pure, neutral, golden standard of inquiry.

academia is totally credible

“I will write my proposals which will have in the middle of them all this work, yeah but on the fringes will tell some untruths about what it might do because that’s the only way it’s going to get funded and you know I’ve got a job to do, and that’s the way I’ve got to do it. It’s a shame isn’t it?”
(UK, Professor)

“If you can find me a single academic who hasn’t had to bullshit or bluff or lie or embellish in order to get grants, then I will find you an academic who is in trouble with his Head of Department. If you don’t play the game, you don’t do well by your university. So anyone that’s so ethical that they won’t bend the rules in order to play the game is going to be in trouble, which is deplorable.”
(Australia, Professor)

“We’ll just find some way of disguising it, no we’ll come out of it alright, we always bloody do, it’s not that, it’s the moral tension it places people under.”
(UK, Professor)

“They’re just playing games – I mean, I think it’s a whole load of nonsense, you’re looking for short term impact and reward so you’re playing a game... it’s over inflated stuff.”
(Australia, Professor)

“Then I’ve got this bit that’s tacked on... That might be sexy enough to get funded but I don’t believe in my heart that there’s any correlation whatsoever... There’s a risk that you end up tacking bits on for fear of the agenda and expectations when it’s not really where your heart is and so the project probably won’t be as strong.”
(Australia, Professor)

In other interviews, the researchers referred to their proposals as “virtually meaningless,” “made up stories” or “charades.” They felt sorry for their own situation. And then justified their behavior by the need to get funding.

backreaction.blogspot.com/2019/03/merchants-of-hype.html

I mean he said it here better than I said it myself. No logical theory can be extended beyond the jurisdiction of its predicate logic. In other words, the logic of our universe cannot be extended out beyond itself. For that reason it cannot describe the entire universe, as it is fundamentally unable to step outside the bounds of the universe it seeks to describe. How can you prove that x=x without the assumption that x=x? Symbols cannot describe anything beyond the set of defined symbols. His approach taken to the extreme is just the representation of all space in time with symbols, which in its ultimate form is just a copy of the universe, a translation of what is into a different language.

Sort of sounds like the incompleteness theorem

Kind of yes. His working theory seems to be that we have simply not discovered/accessed the logic required to describe the entire universe, but that it could be expressed in some finite form. He refuses to accept, it seems, that logic will never "close the loop" and create a finite bubble of logical truth. Even if the universe itself is finite in some regard, the logic it is governed by is not. For this reason a purely logical theory of everything will be one of infinite length (impossible).

he's right about everything, even immortality

The thinking behind it is pretty elegant. He's proposing a self-contained theory of all reality without reference to outside actor (creator god) or arbitrary logical axioms, or empirical claims.

The idea is to rely only on tautologies (logical statements, so no empirical claims, that don't rely on assumptions to be true). Without an outside actor, his model of reality must arise from itself, spontaneously so to speak.

He uses Aristotle's distinction between potential and actual: a piece of wood has the potential to be aflame (it is flammable), but it will only be actually on fire if that potential is actualized (if someone or something set it aflame). Same for a ball (it has the potential to move, but it won't until a force is applied to it).

Potential is a form of freedom, not having potential is a constraint. Depending on something potential actualization is also a constraint. The wood is free to be on fire, but needs to be set on fire. Water is not free to be on fire, but is free to move, but not without being moved.

For any thing, ask what is depends on. As you go on you'll meet freer and less constrained things, until you hit rock-bottom: a thing with absolute freedom, absolute potential, but no constraint. It doesn't depend on anyting else and everything depend on it.

Langan calls it the unbound telesis (UBT), aristotelians called it the Unmoved mover, it's the basis of all reality which arises naturally from it.
Unlike the god of christians it's not outside the universe, it is the root of the universe, and it has no specific will or likeness. It is also rather reminding of the neoplatonic concept of the One.

Since it has no actual properties (it is pure potential) it is, in a sense, nothing, so you could say in Langan's theory reality arises from nothing, but a nothing with potential to become something.
So it is not the "nothing" with zero potential: no potential is actually the strongest possible constraint (it can"t be set on fire, and can't move, it can't do or be anything, it is absolutely constrained), in that sense 'no -potential nothing' is the opposite of the UBT.

Not absolutely everything can arise from the UBT (for instance logical contradictions can't) only thing with enough structure to sustain themselves on their own. So not only reality arises from the UBT, it arises as a consistent whole that excludes absurdities.

Here I'm giving a rather Aritstotelian account of Langan's theory because I feel it makes it easier to illustrate.
Ultimately it does sound like metaphysics, very pretty but rather traditional metahysics ultimately. The novelty is the explicit logical formalism, providing there really is one.

TL;DR: Things have variable degree of freedom and constraints, at the beginning is the thing with no constraint and absolulte freedom, which has no definite property since all property are limitation but has the potential to actualize (make real) all properties that are self-sustaining.

This is a better explanation than those above thanks. It makes it clear to me where my disagreement with his approach comes from. He sees the universe as God's mind, where I see it as God's body.

*depending on something for potential actualization

It's a very logocentric approach to existence as a whole, rather scholastical in nature.
For a very different take there are philosophers of experience like the pehnomenologist.

What do you mean here by God'sbody ?

Seems like a moron who is pretending to be smart in order to push a conservative political agenda. And pol or some other irony poisoned entity keeps spamming him on here because they too are morons

Attached: 0B64AD8F-B984-4582-9BA1-96F6E52917EC.gif (626x438, 665K)

seems perfectly legible to me, all though he definitely could've said it in a shorter and more eloquent manner.

He hasn't created anything or discovered anything.

I think that God has a mind and a body in the same way that human beings do, and that our bodies are physically one and the same with God's. The same way that an organ or a cell is a part of you. Is a person their body or their mind though? Most people say mind, otherwise you would be a different person if you got a limb chopped off for instance. In this way I think about the nature of a human being (my own experience) as being a good starting place to begin intuitively trying to understand God. My thinking is that we are atomized "sub-conscious" aspects of God's body analogous to cells. That the entire universe is a singular living thing where the time from big bang to heat death is its lifetime. Still though like a human it grows matures and ages, and eventually dies after (maybe?) reproducing. In our case we can't know for sure, and by reproducing I mean creating another Universe. One way this might look would be the theoretical triggering of the Big Crunch, or some breakthrough simulation technology. Whether this is Asexual or Sexual with another Universe is an interesting question, but we can't know any more than a cell can see through your eyes. Basically thinking of the instantaneous superposition of every particle in the Universe as what God "looks like". This body evolves throughout time according to a "the laws of nature" as far as we know. All driven according to an unchallenged will except in the cases of living things, which are partially driven by free will.

The CTMU is his creation

Attached: 41.png (614x1035, 62K)

Then what would be God's mind in this scenario ?

his metaphysics are good

Ambitious and tempting but extreely optimistic I'd say. Severe language differences abound even within fields where people share the same metaphysical assumption (or the same disregard for metaphysics).

String theory will be discarded if it doesn’t discover anything

To add, the "meaning" or purpose of freewill and conscious life within the body of God is that it is the only means by which God can remove all that is bad and become only good. He sees everything at the quantum level all at once. Life is a mirror for God. His imperfect eyes, but able to act on a localized scale. We are simplifications of Him, but we enable good and bad to be separated so that the bad may be purged. His changes can only uniformly affect the entire universe, but as life gets more powerful and more intelligent it can act as a tool of locally cultivating good from the inside, and destroying bad. All spiritual and intelligent growth is simply becoming a truer symbol of God

The laws of nature, that which governs the precise movement of all particles through time. We see its shadow in the material world, and its nature though spiritual insight.

Attached: ChrisLangan3.png (613x826, 726K)

>Since the time of Aristotle, metaphysics has been an ill-defined term. This paper defines it as a logically idempotent metalinguistic identity of reality which couples the two initial ingredients of awareness: perceptual reality (the basis of physics), and cognitive-perceptual syntax, a formalization of mind. The explanation has been reduced to a few very simple, clearly explained mathematical ingredients. This paper contains no assumptions or arguable assertions, and is therefore presented as an advanced formulation of logic which has been updated for meaningful reference to the structure of reality at large. This structure, called the Cognitive-Theoretic Model of the Universe or CTMU, resolves the problems attending Cartesian dualism by replacing dualism with the mathematical property of self-duality, meaning (for reality-theoretic purposes) the quantum-level invariance of identity under permutation of objective and spatiotemporal data types. The CTMU takes the form of a global coupling or superposition of mind and physical reality in a self-dual metaphysical identity M:L< >U, which can be intrinsically developed into a logico-geometrically self-dual, ontologically self- contained language incorporating its own medium of existence and comprising its own model therein.

...

Attached: Langan.png (500x270, 216K)

Could this be the new king of Yea Forums?

Have you even read the CTMU?

Nah bro, I just read wikipedia watch youtube and shitpost. Why else would I be writing about this shit on Yea Forums instead of anywhere else?

No. He's a racist.

So, yes.

No, but there is nothing to be learned about the nature of God's will from looking out into the (natural) world. I don't really care about how machines work, other people can figure that out. I care about trying to figure out what end things are working towards.

Amen.

>but there is nothing to be learned about the nature of God's will from looking out into the (natural) world.

trips of untruth

Spoken like a true brainlet

I've been having thoughts almost exactly the same as these. Incredibly strange to me user. Wish I could talk to you in person

Just go to an institute for the mentally insane

He reminds me of the schizoposters on r/sorceryofthespectacle

te vayo pinche you can stop spamming your subreddit or i can start reporting you for breaking the rules

i can prove that god exists better with less words and kindergarten logic

Whitehead did it better

thanks

>reddit spacing
>>/pol/

I have a genius level IQ and his writing style is crystal clear to me and I recognize a lot of thoughts that have occured to me before but that I never connected with one another. I don't get the impression that he's engaging in obscurantism. Not my field, though.

IQ isn't real.

IQ is based on ability to infer from fractal projection, Pythagoras was a fraud, its African bush tribal cultism

very cool, thanks for you input

hack

only sane and smart people have this idea

You’re actually an idiot and should stop posting

I don’t know if any of you guys ever read that book Grand Design by Hawking and Molywhatever his name was. But that part about because the “blueprint” of the universe is rational it doesn’t need an “architect” to light the papers and create it or something. I’m paraphrasing big time. Sounds like the CTMU is just a really fleshed out version of that basic idea which made a lot of intuitive sense to me when I first read it. Funny because all that really came of that book was a new-atheist vs Christian shitstorm like most of 2000-2010. Could have just used the word logos back then to get everyone to agree.

Also, Elon Musk is the smartest man in the world and Chris Lagan is the second. Everyone knows that.

Attached: 1552800628311.jpg (683x683, 68K)