I agree. Langan does have some interesting views. I wonder if any of you actually read his position paper: http://www.iscid.org/papers/Langan_CTMU_092902.pdf. I further wonder if any of you understand it well enough to explain it to another person. I see two problems in Mr. Langan's thinking, at first read: 1. He equates indeterminacy with acausality, and this position is fundamental to his logical construct of the universe. That is, he sees randomness as a logical impossibility -- therefore randomness must equate to magic. 2. Because he requires everything to have a deterministic answer, randomness cannot exist, because the concept is inherently illogical. Regarding #1, magic is the creation of something from nothing. Randomness is not "nothing" -- it is the absence of absolute certainty. Therefore randomness is not magic -- randomness is perfectly logical, and can coexist in an otherwise logical universe. Regarding #2, since randomness can logically exist, #2 is a false restriction on what the universe "is." Therefore, Langan's theory falls on it's own sword of required determinacy. It's not surprising that someone who is as logically superior to others as Langan obviously is, would fail to recognize that something as seemingly illogical as randomness can logically exist. But, the universe doesn't have to play by the laws we humans seek to impose on it. That is, science simply measures what it can and derives local principles under which we explain physical reality. And, just because we define something as measurable in one place or circumstance, doesn't mean that the explanation must be universally consistent. The simple reality that those who desire to impute an ultimate logic to the universe miss, is that randomness "exists" and there's no reason why it cannot. Ironically, without randomness, we are all slaves of a huge universal machine which ultimately and predictably grinds away every moment of existence to a predetermined end. This seems to me a rather painful idea -- I prefer not to think of myself as without any possible control over my life. But, without randomness, this would be the ultimate truth. Similarly, ironic is the fact that this website is dedicated to the professional trader, i.e., a person who is either (1) dedicated to finding an underlying pattern in the markets which will permit exploitation to a pecuniary advantage, or (2) dedicated to idea that the market is inherently unpredictable and therefore the only achievable advantage is to be found by either (a) moving the market via one's own capital and cunning, or (b) managing one's money by betting on the moments when probabilities appear favorable. I will wager that above-described group #2 is the group of traders who earns a living, and that group #1 is the group of traders who finances #2's ability to earn a living. And, what is really really ironic about this last observation, is that what I have just described is "nature red in tooth and claw." You know, Darwinian survival of the fittest.
actually i remember watching this spot on 20/20 when it first ran. so yeah, i am gullible. i fell for it... abc, popular science and esquire have all done bits on this guy. it's been awhile since i read <a href="http://www.ctmu.org/">"Cognitive-Theoretic Model of the Universe"</a> though. j/k <a href="http://megafoundation.org/CTMU/Press/PopularScience/PopSciInt.pdf">PopularScience/Langan</a>
as i have stated multiple times on these boards, i voted for bush in 2000 and have owned up to this horrendous mistake. i hadn't voted for a non independent in awhile and i really hated the thought of a gore administration. i was blinded by the prospects of the libby libs being in power for 12 straight yrs. i stuck to my guns about "no WMDs" pre iraq war even when my friends were raking me through the coals. i have no patience for people like dawkins regarding atheism. i enjoy a good debate but this guy cherry picks fools and then puts them in his documentary. regarding the sex slave industry i stand by my previous position. regarding 9/11, i notice rearden is awfully quiet. still having trouble with the magic passport huh? regarding rearden's depression i am open to pharmacological management, but i am a proponent of a holistic approach. religiously, i was much more open minded in my early adult years.. i have no patience for clowns such as L Ron Hubbard or Dawkins. Dawkins discredits himself with his "Penn & Teller" approach.
i find mainstream religious leaders such as falwell, robertson, and hagee to be no more than charlatans/puppets. before haggard was exposed, i cringed when the media would interview him... btw, he was pro bush, pro iraq war. hagee is a war monger, chicken hawk who couldn't think his way out of a wet paper bag.
<i>as i have stated multiple times on these boards, i voted for bush in 2000 and have owned up to this horrendous mistake. i hadn't voted for a non independent in awhile and i really hated the thought of a gore administration. i was blinded by the prospects of the libby libs being in power for 12 straight yrs.</i> ------> Can you really call that "Changing your mind on a meaningful political, theological or philosophical issue"? Pre-2000 elections, you were probably just thinking the same thing I was, that being: "Are these two fools really the two best possible leaders this country has to offer? Sigh... Guess I'll just vote for the one that seems to suck a bit less than the other." Unless you truly and whole-heartedly put your faith in the fine leadership abilities of G.W., I wouldn't call that much of a change of heart at all. ___________ <i> i have no patience for people like dawkins regarding atheism. i enjoy a good debate but this guy cherry picks fools and then puts them in his documentary.</i> -------> I'm not really a big fan either He's not my kind of atheist, and I've explained why. ____________ <i>regarding the sex slave industry i stand by my previous position.</i> -----> I have no problem with you being against slavery! My grandmother was a slave at Auschwitz- I'm not exactly a fan of the practice either- and that should be painfully and indisputably obvious. The absurdity of it, was the way you kept <b>blindly insisting</b> that I personally have done things you should know (assuming you have the pattern recognition skills of a half-decent trader) I have never done, and would never do. I don't even want to go back into that circle of insanity with you. It's not like you're suddenly going to apologize for making those absurd accusations. You're way too stubborn for that. Your years of pent-up sexual frustration has become a coiled spring which can trigger your primal fight-or-flight instinct to activate whenever you're reminded of all the sexual gratification other people are enjoying without you. I don't fully understand why the subject of prominiscuity enrages you so deeply, and I'll probably never find out. So- let's just drop it. _____________ <i>regarding 9/11, i notice rearden is awfully quiet. still having trouble with the magic passport huh?</i> ----> I have doubts, but can't be certain either way.
lol... ratgirl, do you seriously think I would make a post like that before Googling Langan first? Check out some of the other hits. Seems like a cult of personality type to me. He may even be a very high IQ guy but he's no scientist, in my view. Something about the whole 'string-synth pad under the Video footage' makes me a bit suspicious. My point was just that you post up your Google video search results here as if you were Woodward and Bernstein revealing Deep Throat.