Re: Cognitive Theoretic Model of the Universe

From: John Mikes <>
Date: Mon, 1 Jun 2009 15:20:47 -0400

Russell, I second (if it is of any worth).

I 'tried' to read the diatribes on the html page and my perseverence ws not
sufficient to stay in he lines. Some concepts seem to be mixed (I did not
say "up") e.g. to identify 'reality' one should get a hold of it and I found
'physical' sketchy (maybe I blurred-up where it was more sorrowly
identified). . .
It was funny to read about ONE universe in all, spacetime etc. as universal
foundations, and so on, I think this list is past such level.
About the Ph.D.: I agree, it is a harsh schooling to compose/order ideas an
regulate one's thinking (if the tutor is any good). My 2nd one was a lot
easier than the 1st one. I don't care too much for titles, but in terms as a
mental training I appreciate your position.

I don't care too much for high IQs either (was measured once for a job
interview and they disclosed upon my threat only that it was >200) - but I
assigned it to the metric system I grew into: saved lots of time in the math
problems by converting the US units into metric, play with the decimal point
and reformed the US units. Which is not much of an intelligence. Other
topics in those tests are cultural background related, plus a snobbish
preference for certain domains in the cognitive inventory by the organizers
of the particular test. People with other background may fail.

John M

On Sat, May 30, 2009 at 7:16 PM, russell standish <>wrote:

> I looked into him about a month or so ago, after he'd posted an
> unflattering remark about my work. He might have an IQ of 200, but to
> put it bluntly, what he writes is "drivel". It may well have a kernel
> of truth, and there may well even be original thought in there, but it
> is so voluminous and so badly organised it is impossible to tell.
> Basically, my advice to him would be to get a PhD. It doesn't teach
> you creativity, but does teach you how to organise and express your
> ideas so that others can possibly understand it. But I suspect Chris
> Langan is too proud to do this. At least Bruno has done his PhD, and
> his work is so much the better off for him having gone through that
> process, painful though it was.
> Cheers
> On Sat, May 30, 2009 at 02:08:44PM -0700, wrote:
> >
> > Has anyone on this list ever heard of this? A theory of reality
> > formulated by Christopher Michael Langan?
> >
> >
> >
> > It sounds a little sketchy at first, though not entirely different
> > than some of what Bruno Marchal says.
> >
> > Obviously the main reason to pay much attention to it is that Langan
> > has an IQ of between 190 and 210. Which kept me going past the first
> > paragraph, which is when I would otherwise have stopped.
> >
> > But, after further reading it sounds somewhat more plausible. I'd be
> > very interested in hearing Bruno's opinion.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> --
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Prof Russell Standish Phone 0425 253119 (mobile)
> Mathematics
> Australia
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
For more options, visit this group at
Received on Mon Jun 01 2009 - 15:20:47 PDT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Fri Feb 16 2018 - 13:20:15 PST