Langan

>if you want to make it an academia, just slavishly parrot the thoughts of better men and argue over the minutia of their systems until you get tenure

and you think this isn't autism

Why do people claim he's some sort of genius? Is it because of the way he writes? It's easy to write

>There are not many points in history at which a theory, seemingly reaching down from the heavens, rearranges the collective mental landscape. Oftentimes, it is not a “reaching” but perhaps closer to an imbuing, a well-arranged yet pathos-lined overflowing of the intellectual boundaries of the times. With Chris Langan and his Cognitive-Theoretic Model of the Universe,the novel, intellectual-world-shaking piquancy contained within has already begun its expansion. Unfortunately however, it seems there are many years of intellectual absorption to go.
>And, within contemporary academia, attention seems to be decidedly directed in the opposite direction of metaphysics. With the rise and lasting impact of the scientific method and falsificationism advanced by Karl Popper, et al., following not long after the demise of logical positivism and its cousin, logical atomism, intellectual current shifted from metaphysical-foundational concerns to experimental-buttressing ones. In the contemporary philosophy department, excluding engaging talk of philosophy of mind and dualism physicalism debate, metaphysics is almost exclusively relegated to discussion of theories bygone.
>Yet, this isn’t to say that those theories of bygone are of fundamentally different nature than ones today. We may be permitted to contrast and even compare contemporary works with the classics, emphasizing points worth pursuing and relegating those we prove antiquated.
>Within the coming pages, we will journey through the metaphysical constructions of two vastly different people, Ludwig Wittgenstein and Christopher Langan. And throughout the exposition, the vastly different nature of their works will also appear.
>What weds the two however is language. It is not a mere emphasis on language for pragmatic or aesthetic purpose but a dual insistence that language, to varying extent for Langan and Wittgenstein respectively, is fundamental to reality. And, as we progress, we will glean the insights of both, ultimately seeing the nature of our universe clearer than perhaps ever before.

researchgate.net/publication/332522714_Langan's_CTMU_and_Wittgenstein's_Tractatus_Contrasting_Metaphysical_Methods_or_God_versus_Language

Attached: ChrisLangan.jpg (613x826, 671K)

I think he’s underrated, especially because of his lack of academic credentials and, in fact, outright disavowal and criticism of academia. He’s not a hack. You don’t need a degree to be a philosopher.

He's not intelligent, he's just above average (and that just because he knows how to write).
As far as I remember (1) IQ test do not work "upwards" and do not directly correlate to what one would call intelligence (2) His IQ was found to be hyper-high because of the Mega Test, which is a bullshit test (3) The other IQ tests he took are self-reported to be ridiculously high.

It's also a little bit of common sense. If he's that smart, he would be expected to be a prodigy, but a REAL prodigy. Children like Tao o Hirata have around the same IQ and already knew how to do Calculus before the age of 10. At that point it's not a excuse to say that you were "smart but lazy", as if that magically made you not being able to show you are advanced. I remember he also claimed shit like getting 1600 in the SAT while taking a nap, which is obvious BS, just because of logical time constraints and the fact that before the 2000s there were normally just around 10 people with a 1600 each year (and obviously no one gives prove of that BS Langan gives).

IQ is not intelligence. It doesn't measure anything outside of pattern recognition. Where in the IQ test are creativity, audacity, and bravery measured? What about leadership? What about willpower? Langan is missing the last 4, which is why he's content with being a bouncer.
>I am certain that Bill Gates, Mark Zuckerberg, or a Chinese grad student at MIT have an exponentially higher IQ than did Metternich, Napoleon, Adolf Hitler, Beethoven, or da Vinci.
>I am equally certain that no man would lay down his life for Bill Gates, Mark Zuckerberg will never write a brilliant symphony, and a Chinese engineering student will not build a Parthenon anytime soon.

>It's also a little bit of common sense. If he's that smart, he would be expected to be a prodigy, but a REAL prodigy. Children like Tao o Hirata have around the same IQ and already knew how to do Calculus before the age of 10. At that point it's not a excuse to say that you were "smart but lazy", as if that magically made you not being able to show you are advanced. I remember he also claimed shit like getting 1600 in the SAT while taking a nap, which is obvious BS, just because of logical time constraints and the fact that before the 2000s there were normally just around 10 people with a 1600 each year (and obviously no one gives prove of that BS Langan gives).
The first paragraph you wrote was right, but the one quoted sounds like a cope.
>Children like Tao o Hirata have around the same IQ and already knew how to do Calculus before the age of 10
and you didn't? lol I knew how to do basic calculus at that age.

I don't know why so many idiots consider this guy a "genius", yes he have a huge IQ (like so many other "geniuses" who ended up being nothing). He is just a science fiction writer who's trying to pass as a physicist who later uses the excuse of not being a real one because he decided not to be one and that's why being a bouncer is a more suitable job for a man with his "capabilities". Anyone could come with a crazy theory and call himself a genius.

Attached: 8eabaf999af187aac93316f25eb0b0bf8b4d9eb7103f43e1db0720f3e0a32688.png (896x630, 473K)

Ironic shitposting is still shitposting

I have no idea but his personality is shitty and nobody seems to take him seriously. Except for a few random dilettantes who may or may not be trolling and confirmed smoothbrains.

>In a 2014 radio interview, Langan said that he has worked on the P versus NP problem and thinks he can prove that P does not equal NP. However, he states that he think his work might not be reviewed by the community, and so does not wish to spend the time and effort.
lmao

He believes in a double aspect theory of reality which is way over the heads of academic philosophers and way way over the head of the average Yea Forumsard

Da Vinci unironically had a 200+ IQ

it's fine, I'll just ask icycalm.

IQ tests weren't administered when Da Vinci was alive.

What's funny?

Attached: Chris Langan's answer to How close is Chris Langan to solving the P versus NP problem - Quora.p (773x640, 100K)

There aren't any, people who take an interest in Whitehead, Deleuze, Derrida etc and who express an antipathy towards 'being' typically suffer from inwards flaws that make them seek to disassociate them from themselves, to metaphysically 'cuckold' themselves out of existence as it were. They then project this attitude onto everything and everyone which is why like western buddhists and anglo protestants they take to proselytizing their newfound beliefs because it helps to fill the hole in their heart

Attached: 1556339764636.jpg (801x1187, 253K)

CTMU is the greatest theory.

The Mega Testbis nowhere near a good indicator of intelligence.

People like Chris Langan, Rick Rosner and Marilyn Von Savant are nothing but charlatans.

His works and writing prove he was one of the most intelligent people who ever lived. IQ testing is grossly inaccurate at extreme values anyway