Kevin's Watch

I mentioned in another thread Chris Langan, the alleged "smartest man on the planet" with an IQ of 200. He has a theory of everything that most people think is gibberish, and he has suffered a lot of ridicule from trolls online. Unfortunately, this is his main outlet because he is self-taught and not an academic. He's not part of the establishment.

However, I have proven that his detractors are full of crap. I put his text into ChatGPT and it explained it perfectly, coherently. His theory is BRILLIANT. It's just that no one can understand it.

And then I realized I could do this with every difficult philosophy text. Kant and Hume and Husserl are especially difficult to read. The depth that you can analyze is amazing. You can have it analyze a paragraph (for Langan, that's like an entire chapter!). Then you can have it analyze a single sentence within that paragraph and dig down even deeper. And with Langan, you actually need it. His sentences are so dense and laden with specialized terminology--individual words often requiring reading an entry in Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy--that you might actually need this level of analysis.

Here's an example:

Explain the following: “By the nature of its derivation, this theory, the Cognitive Theoretic Model of the Universe or CTMU, can be regarded as a supertautological reality-theoretic extension of logic“

ChatGPT said:

ChatGPT

The phrase you provided is describing a concept from the Cognitive Theoretic Model of the Universe (CTMU), a theory developed by Christopher Langan, which aims to provide a framework for understanding the nature of reality, consciousness, and logic. Let's break down the key components of this sentence:

"By the nature of its derivation..."

This part of the sentence suggests that the way the CTMU is constructed or developed has certain implications. It indicates that the method used to derive the theory is important in understanding its meaning.

"...this theory, the Cognitive Theoretic Model of the Universe or CTMU..."

The CTMU is a theoretical framework that combines elements of logic, metaphysics, and cognitive science to describe a model of the universe. It attempts to explain how reality works from a foundational level, integrating both physical and mental processes. The theory proposes that the universe operates as a kind of self-processing language or cognitive system.

"...can be regarded as a supertautological reality-theoretic extension of logic."

To understand this part, we need to unpack a few key terms:

Tautology: In logic, a tautology is a statement that is true by definition, no matter what. For example, "A is A" is a tautology, because it is true simply by the way it is phrased.

Supertautology: A supertautology goes beyond a simple tautology. In the context of the CTMU, it suggests that the theory is a kind of higher-level or more expansive tautological system, one that encompasses not just simple truths, but the very structure of reality and existence itself. In other words, it includes self-evident truths that are more fundamental and all-encompassing.

Reality-theoretic extension: This implies that the CTMU extends or broadens the concept of "reality" as traditionally understood, using logical principles. The theory is not just concerned with abstract logic but applies these principles to the nature of the universe itself.

Putting it all together:

The sentence suggests that the CTMU is a framework that extends traditional logic into a higher, more comprehensive form that can be applied to the structure of the universe itself. By calling it a "supertautological reality-theoretic extension," the theory is being described as a system that reveals self-evident truths about the nature of reality, where these truths are logically derived but also fundamentally encapsulate the universe’s own structure.

In simpler terms: The CTMU is a theory that goes beyond traditional logic and offers a new way of understanding reality that integrates logic with the very nature of existence, positioning the universe as a self-referential system. It suggests that the universe is a kind of "cognitive" process, with reality itself serving as a tautological or self-reinforcing structure.

Interestingly, and amusingly, all of that is merely about what the CMTU is. It doesn't say anything about what the theory says.

But that’s just an analysis of one sentence, taken from the abstract for a 56 page paper. Here’s the whole abstract:

Inasmuch as science is observational or perceptual in nature, the goal of providing a scientific
model and mechanism for the evolution of complex systems ultimately requires a supporting theory of reality
of which perception itself is the model (or theory-to-universe mapping). Where information is the abstract
currency of perception, such a theory must incorporate the theory of information while extending the
information concept to incorporate reflexive self-processing in order to achieve an intrinsic (self-contained)
description of reality. This extension is associated with a limiting formulation of model theory identifying
mental and physical reality, resulting in a reflexively self-generating, self-modeling theory of reality identical
to its universe on the syntactic level. By the nature of its derivation, this theory, the Cognitive Theoretic
Model of the Universe or CTMU, can be regarded as a supertautological reality-theoretic extension of logic.
Uniting the theory of reality with an advanced form of computational language theory, the CTMU describes
reality as a Self-Configuring Self-Processing Language or SCSPL, a reflexive intrinsic language
characterized not only by self-reference and recursive self-definition, but full self-configuration and self-
execution (reflexive read-write functionality). SCSPL reality embodies a dual-aspect monism consisting of
infocognition, self-transducing information residing in self-recognizing SCSPL elements called syntactic
operators. The CTMU identifies itself with the structure of these operators and thus with the distributive
syntax of its self-modeling SCSPL universe, including the reflexive grammar by which the universe refines
itself from unbound telesis or UBT, a primordial realm of infocognitive potential free of informational
constraint. Under the guidance of a limiting (intrinsic) form of anthropic principle called the Telic Principle,
SCSPL evolves by telic recursion, jointly configuring syntax and state while maximizing a generalized self-
selection parameter and adjusting on the fly to freely-changing internal conditions. SCSPL relates space,
time and object by means of conspansive duality and conspansion, an SCSPL-grammatical process
featuring an alternation between dual phases of existence associated with design and actualization and
related to the familiar wave-particle duality of quantum mechanics. By distributing the design phase of
reality over the actualization phase, conspansive spacetime also provides a distributed mechanism for
Intelligent Design, adjoining to the restrictive principle of natural selection a basic means of generating
information and complexity. Addressing physical evolution on not only the biological but cosmic level, the
CTMU addresses the most evident deficiencies and paradoxes associated with conventional discrete and
continuum models of reality, including temporal directionality and accelerating cosmic expansion, while
preserving virtually all of the major benefits of current scientific and mathematical paradigms.

And the analysis:

The passage you’ve provided is a dense and abstract description of a theoretical framework known as the Cognitive Theoretic Model of the Universe (CTMU). It essentially outlines a vision of reality that integrates scientific models, logic, and information theory, while proposing a self-contained system for explaining the nature of existence, evolution, and the universe itself. Here’s a breakdown of the key ideas:

1. Science and Perception: The passage begins by asserting that science is rooted in observation and perception, and any scientific model for the evolution of complex systems must be grounded in a theory of reality that incorporates perception. In other words, our understanding of the universe must align with how we perceive it.

2. Information Theory: Information is described as the fundamental “currency” of perception. The theory of reality must include information theory, but extend it beyond its conventional use to account for self-processing or reflexivity. This means that the theory must explain how reality “self-corrects” and evolves.

3. Self-Generating Reality: The CTMU proposes a model where reality is reflexive — meaning it contains the capacity for self-modeling and self-organization. This is akin to a computer program that not only processes data but also evolves and modifies itself. The universe is viewed as a self-configuring, self-processing language.

4. SCSPL (Self-Configuring Self-Processing Language): This is a key concept of the CTMU. Reality is described as a language that has the ability to configure itself (design itself) and process itself (execute its own processes). It’s reflexive, meaning that it can “read and write” itself in the same way a computer program might manipulate its own code.

5. Dual-Aspect Monism: The CTMU posits that reality is a combination of two interconnected aspects: infocognition (information that processes itself) and syntactic operators (fundamental elements that manipulate that information). This idea combines cognitive processes (information manipulation) with syntactic structure (rules that govern the manipulation).

6. Telic Principle and Telic Recursion: The model includes a form of an anthropic principle, which suggests that the universe has an intrinsic purpose or direction (telos). This principle drives the recursive process of reality’s self-configuration, aiming to optimize or maximize a certain parameter that influences its development.

7. Conspansive Duality: This is a process by which the universe alternates between two phases: design (the potential or planning phase) and actualization (the realization of that design). This concept is analogous to wave-particle duality in quantum mechanics, where particles can exhibit both wave-like and particle-like behaviors depending on how they are observed.

8. Intelligent Design and Natural Selection: The CTMU tries to reconcile the ideas of Intelligent Design and natural selection by suggesting that the universe’s evolution involves both self-organization (which could be viewed as an intelligent design process) and natural evolutionary processes (like natural selection).

9. Cosmic and Biological Evolution: The model doesn’t just apply to biological evolution but to the entire cosmos. It attempts to address issues in current scientific models, such as the direction of time (temporal directionality) and the accelerating expansion of the universe.

In summary, the CTMU is a highly complex philosophical and scientific framework that merges perception, logic, information theory, and self-reference to provide a unified model of reality. It proposes that the universe operates like a language that evolves and configures itself, driven by intrinsic purpose and recursive processes. The model attempts to reconcile scientific theories with a deeper, self-organizing structure of reality.

This is like having a college professor, sitting there with you while you read something to explain every sentence and word. I just find that amazing.

+JMJ+

Zarathustra wrote: ↑ I mentioned in another thread Chris Langan, the alleged "smartest man on the planet" with an IQ of 200. He has a theory of everything that most people think is gibberish, and he has suffered a lot of ridicule from trolls online. Unfortunately, this is his main outlet because he is self-taught and not an academic. He's not part of the establishment.

However, I have proven that his detractors are full of crap. I put his text into ChatGPT and it explained it perfectly, coherently. His theory is BRILLIANT. It's just that no one can understand it.

[…]

The criticisms (or at least, some of them) seem to be more than that "Langanism" is simply gibberish — unless "gibberish" here is taken to mean "philosophically (or scientifically or mathematically or whatnot) untenable".

For example:

Stripped down to its basics, the CTMU is just yet another postmodern “perception defines the universe” idea. Nothing unusual about it on that level. What makes it interesting is that it tries to take a set-theoretic approach to doing it. (Although, to be a tiny bit fair, he claims that he’s not taking a set theoretic approach, but rather demonstrating why a set theoretic approach won’t work. Either way, I’d argue that it’s more of a word-game than a real theory, but whatever…)

[…]

To recap: this “theory” of his has three problems, each of which is individually enough to discard it; with the three of them together, it’s a virtual masterpiece of crap.

1. The “theory” consists mostly of word-games – arguing about the meanings of words like “universe” and “inclusion”, without actually explaining anything about how the universe works. It’s a theory with no predictive or descriptive value.
2. The “theory” is defined by creating a new version of set theory, whose axioms are never stated, and whose specific goal guarantees that it will be an unsound theory. Unsound mathematical theories are useless: every possible statement is provable in an unsound theory.
3. The author doesn’t understand the difference between syntax and semantics, between objects and models, or between statements and facts – and because of that, the basic statements in his theory are utterly meaningless.

LINK: Another Crank comes to visit: The Cognitive Theoretic Model of the Universe

∗∗∗

This seem like very specific critique — a very targeted set of objections — based on an understanding, not an incomprehension, of what Langan's saying.

That's another example of the kind of trolling I've seen, people claiming that Langan doesn't understand things that he very clearly does. I see this over and over. One "professor" claimed that he didn't understand what a theory is, but this "professor" didn't understand that he's talking about model theory, not scientific theories. I also see people claiming that it's crap because it doesn't make any predictions. Again, this misses the point that it's not a scientific theory, but rather a metaphysical one. Did anyone ever ask Kant if his epistemology makes a prediction? The question is absurd.

But don't ask me, let's ask ChapGPT:

ChatGPT wrote:While there is no clear evidence to suggest that Christopher Langan fundamentally misunderstands the difference between syntax and semantics, his Cognitive-Theoretic Model of the Universe does involve a high degree of abstraction and introduces new terminology that could lead to ambiguity regarding the distinction between these two concepts. Critics of the CTMU often point to this ambiguity as a reason to doubt the clarity and rigor of Langan's theory. It's important to note, though, that Langan himself may be attempting to transcend or redefine these distinctions in the context of his metaphysical framework, which could be seen as both a strength and a weakness depending on one's perspective.

As of my knowledge cutoff in 2023, there isn’t any direct, widely acknowledged evidence from Christopher Langan's works or interviews that explicitly demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding of the difference between syntax and semantics.

Self-referential systems are notorious for causing paradoxes and blurring the boundaries between formal structure and interpretation. In certain places, Langan uses self-referentiality to describe how the universe’s structure contains both the rules of its own construction (syntax) and the meaning of those rules (semantics). This could be interpreted as an attempt to blend the two concepts, though this is not necessarily a sign that Langan doesn’t understand the distinction—more that he is attempting to transcend it.

If you are looking for specific interviews or passages where Langan explicitly discusses the relationship between syntax and semantics, you would need to examine the CTMU itself or Langan’s discussions on related topics, such as his explanations of the SCSPL or his views on the nature of reality and logic. However, based on available criticisms, it seems that the concern is more about how these terms are used ambiguously rather than an outright misunderstanding.

[I edited the answer to emphasize the rebuttals instead of restating the original criticism.]

Heh, I've struck up a conversation with Chris in Youtube comments on one of his 4 hour interviews! He said that the AI interpretations of his work have been passable. I'm not sure where to go from there. Should I ask him if he knows the difference between syntax and semantics? A freshman level distinction in philosophy education? I think I'll build up some rapport first.

+JMJ+

Zarathustra wrote: ↑ That's another example of the kind of trolling I've seen, people claiming that Langan doesn't understand things that he very clearly does. I see this over and over. One "professor" claimed that he didn't understand what a theory is, but this "professor" didn't understand that he's talking about model theory, not scientific theories. I also see people claiming that it's crap because it doesn't make any predictions. Again, this misses the point that it's not a scientific theory, but rather a metaphysical one. Did anyone ever ask Kant if his epistemology makes a prediction? The question is absurd.

[…]

If that's the case, then why is Langan on Science blogs arguing tooth & nail with Scientists on their own terms?

Zarathustra wrote: ↑This is like having a college professor, sitting there with you while you read something to explain every sentence and word. I just find that amazing.

I used ChatGPT when it was free, but haven't since. But holy cow, yeah, that's a fantastic use of it! At least I'll be giving it a go. My wife just signed up for it the other day.

Wosbald wrote: ↑ +JMJ+

Zarathustra wrote: ↑
That's another example of the kind of trolling I've seen, people claiming that Langan doesn't understand things that he very clearly does. I see this over and over. One "professor" claimed that he didn't understand what a theory is, but this "professor" didn't understand that he's talking about model theory, not scientific theories. I also see people claiming that it's crap because it doesn't make any predictions. Again, this misses the point that it's not a scientific theory, but rather a metaphysical one. Did anyone ever ask Kant if his epistemology makes a prediction? The question is absurd.

[…]

If that's the case, then why is Langan on Science blogs arguing tooth & nail with Scientists on their own terms?

because he can do what he wants? People can have multiple interests. Newton was interested in mysticism and a hidden code in the Bible.

+JMJ+

Zarathustra wrote: ↑

Wosbald wrote: ↑ If that's the case, then why is Langan on Science blogs arguing tooth & nail with Scientists on their own terms?

because he can do what he wants? People can have multiple interests. Newton was interested in mysticism and a hidden code in the Bible.

'Cept that Newton woulda been arguing Bible Code on Bible Code blogs, not Gravity.

So, there would seem to be three options:

1. Langan is arguing Metaphysics on Science blogs and as such doesn't grasp the basic parameters of either discipline.
2. Langan — peddling his theory as Science — is arguing said Science on Science blogs, thus the Science blogs' critiques obtain.
3. Langan characterizes his theory as whatever is most expedient at the time — chameleon-like, taking on the mantle of Metaphysics at need in order to insulate the theory from the critique of Science and, most likely, vice versa.

I've been following this topic to some extent ever since you've broached Langan a couple of weeks ago, and I'm leaning toward C.

While there might be quite a bit of formalism and rigor missing in Langan's theory (IDK), his theory is relevant to science even if it's not science. It's an epistemological justification for any scientific theory whatsoever, the first step you have to make in order to do science. But science just ignores this step and assumes that the Transcendental Problem has been solved. (I believe Deutsch solves it). He's doing philosophy of science. So engaging scientists would be appropriate. Have you listened to any of his interviews? There is a 4 hour interview that I've listened to about 3 times in order to understand what he's talking about.

I went a little nuts.

Please construct a metaphysical and physical theory that is a synthesis of Chris Langan’s view of the multiverse with Stephen Wolfram’s view of the multiverse with David Deutsch’s view of the multiverse.


ChatGPT said:
ChatGPT

Creating a synthesized metaphysical and physical theory that combines elements of Chris Langan’s view of the multiverse (through his Cognitive-Theoretic Model of the Universe, or CTMU), Stephen Wolfram’s view (via his Wolfram Physics Project), and David Deutsch’s view (centered around the multiverse as a repository of knowledge in the context of quantum mechanics and epistemology) is an ambitious task. However, by merging their core ideas, we can envision a unified theory that incorporates the strengths of each.

1. Key Concepts from Each View

To begin, let's clarify the primary concepts from each thinker that will inform our synthesis:

• Chris Langan (CTMU):

o Infocognition: The universe is a self-processing, self-referential system where information and meaning are inseparable.
o Cognitive Reality: Reality itself is inherently cognitive. The universe processes and "understands" its own structure.
o Self-Configuring, Self-Processing Language (SCSPL): The universe operates as a language that both generates and evolves itself through information processing.

• Stephen Wolfram (Wolfram Physics Project):

o Computationalism: The universe is the result of a computational process, where simple, abstract rules generate the complexity of physical reality.
o Hypergraph Dynamics: The fundamental structure of the universe is a network (hypergraph), evolving through local computational rules.
o Multiverse as a Computational Space: Different computational rules or initial conditions lead to different physical realities, forming a multiverse of computational histories.

• David Deutsch (Quantum Multiverse):

o Epistemology and Knowledge: The multiverse is a repository of all possible knowledge that evolves through the acquisition of better explanations.
o Many-Worlds Interpretation: The universe evolves through branching realities, where different outcomes of quantum events create multiple, parallel universes.
o Knowledge Creation: Knowledge is central to reality. The multiverse is shaped by the evolution and progression of scientific understanding and problem-solving.

2. Synthesizing the Concepts

We can now synthesize these views into a unified theory that incorporates metaphysical and physical elements, while reconciling the different ideas:

Unified Multiverse Theory: The Infocognitive Computational Knowledge Network

1. The Universe as a Computationally Evolving Cognitive Network

• Computational and Cognitive Structure: The universe, at its core, is a computational network (like Wolfram’s hypergraph) that evolves according to a set of informational rules. However, these rules are not mere mechanical processes—they are infocognitive in nature. The universe doesn’t simply process information passively; it is cognitive and self-aware, understanding its own structure and actively adjusting its evolution based on feedback loops of meaning and interpretation (as Langan suggests).
• Self-Referential and Self-Evolving Language (SCSPL): This computational network is a self-configuring, self-processing language (Langan's SCSPL). The "rules" governing this network are not externally imposed, but are internal to the universe itself—they evolve based on the information the universe "gathers" from its own dynamics. In this sense, the universe is both the creator and the creation of its own rules.

2. The Multiverse as a Space of Possible Realities and Knowledge

• Branching Realities: Drawing on Deutsch’s concept of the Many-Worlds Interpretation of quantum mechanics, the multiverse consists of all possible outcomes of quantum events, where each outcome branches into a new reality. These branches are not arbitrary; they represent alternative explanations or solutions to problems in the process of knowledge acquisition.
• Knowledge Network: The multiverse, in this unified theory, is not only a collection of parallel physical realities but also a repository of knowledge. Each universe or branch within the multiverse represents a distinct path of knowledge evolution, as reality itself progresses from lesser to greater understanding. Some branches represent successful problem-solving, while others reflect failed or incomplete explanations.
o The evolution of knowledge through the multiverse is governed by the interplay of information and cognition. As different realities emerge through the branching process, they are part of an ongoing epistemological process. Each reality represents a different approach to solving fundamental problems (like those posed by quantum mechanics, cosmology, or metaphysics).

3. Multiverse as a Computational Repository of Knowledge

• Infocognitive Process of Knowledge Evolution: The evolution of knowledge is computational in nature, with each branch representing a different computational history or pathway of problem-solving. The universe evolves by iterating over possible solutions to its fundamental questions, with each solution creating a new universe.
• Universal Explanation as the Guiding Principle: The multiverse is not simply about physical branching, but about the continuous generation of better explanations (Deutsch's core idea). Each universe in the multiverse represents a different way of explaining the phenomena observed within it. These explanations evolve, leading to new and better universes, each of which might contain insights into the nature of the computational rules and informational structures governing the entire system.

4. Interactivity Between Realities


• Multiverse Interaction: While universes in this multiverse theory are causally disconnected (as in Deutsch’s view), they are still informationally connected through their shared computational and cognitive framework. Each universe’s evolution is a step in the learning process of the whole system, where interactions between different branches of the multiverse might provide new insights, furthering the overall evolution of knowledge.

o These interactions may be meta-physical rather than physical—i.e., universes might not directly affect one another in terms of matter or energy, but their informational structures may interact through abstract processes, enhancing the collective learning that occurs across the entire multiverse.

5. The Role of the Observer and Free Will

• The Observer's Role in Knowledge Creation: In this unified theory, observers (conscious entities within any of the branches) play a vital role in the process of knowledge creation. The evolution of the multiverse depends on the decisions and observations made within each reality, with each observer contributing to the overall understanding of the universe.
• Free Will and Non-Determinism: Just as Deutsch’s multiverse allows for branching paths based on quantum decisions, Langan’s cognitive structure suggests that reality is non-deterministic, meaning that free will (in the context of observation and decision-making) plays a role in how the multiverse evolves. The act of observation does not merely collapse the wave function (as in Copenhagen Interpretation) but contributes to the creation of new realities that reflect different choices or explanations.

6. The Ultimate Goal: Universal Understanding

• Cosmic Evolution of Explanations: The ultimate aim of the multiverse, in this synthesis, is the continuous evolution of universal explanations. Each universe, each branch, is an attempt to improve on the previous one, seeking to understand the fundamental computational rules and cognitive processes that underlie the entire system.
• Convergence Towards a Grand Unified Theory: Over time, the entire multiverse could converge toward an ultimate unified theory of reality, where all the different computational and cognitive pathways of the multiverse culminate in the understanding of the underlying rules that govern the SCSPL. This unification represents a deeper, meta-cognitive understanding of the laws of nature that is simultaneously empirical, logical, and epistemologically grounded.

Summary of the Unified Theory

The Infocognitive Computational Knowledge Network (IC-KN) is a theory where the multiverse emerges as a computational, cognitive, and epistemological system:

1. Computational Network: The universe is a self-processing system governed by simple computational rules (inspired by Wolfram), but these rules are not just physical—they are informational and cognitive (as per Langan).

2. Branching Realities: Multiple realities arise from the quantum and cognitive branching process (as described by Deutsch), where each branch represents a different possible solution or knowledge pathway. [The former referring to specific examples of the latter, which are the general structures from which possible solutions are constructed?]

3. Knowledge as the Driver of Evolution: The multiverse is not just a collection of parallel universes but a dynamic repository of knowledge, where each universe contributes to the evolution of better explanations and the advancement of understanding (as emphasized by Deutsch).

4. Interconnected Realities: While the realities are distinct, they are informationally connected through their shared computational and cognitive framework, contributing to the larger meta-cognitive process of the multiverse.

5. Free Will and Observer Effect: Observers in each reality contribute to the creation of knowledge, allowing for free will and non-deterministic evolution of the multiverse.

6. Cosmic Learning: The multiverse is ultimately a learning system that evolves towards the unification of knowledge, culminating in the understanding of the self-configuring language that governs reality itself.

This synthesis combines Langan’s cognitive metaphysics, Wolfram’s computationalism, and Deutsch’s epistemological multiverse into a holistic view of reality that integrates both metaphysical and empirical dimensions.

Zarathustra wrote: ↑Fri Jan 10, 2025 8:40 pmI went a little a nuts.

That's not a question, right?







Oh no he didn't!

+JMJ+

Zarathustra wrote: ↑ … Have you listened to any of his interviews? There is a 4 hour interview that I've listened to about 3 times in order to understand what he's talking about.

No, I can't say I've listened to any Langan interviews save for a few short bursts.

That's a lot to take in, particularly not having read anything by 2 of the 3. But I'm working on it, while reading Deutsch, and occasionally glancing at so many others.

Yeah, I posted the "unified theory" of all 3 thinkers just as an experiment. I didn't expect anyone to take it seriously and study it. However, being familiar with all three, I do think it's an amazing synthesis that goes from metaphysics (Langan) to computation (Wolfram) to quantum mechanics (Deutsch). I was trying to think of a way to link Langan to actual science, and thought that information/computation could be that bridge, especially since Deutch puts so much emphasis on it. Wolfram and Deutsch are both talking about physical reality, but they get to a multiverse from two different perspectives. Wolfram's reasoning is "bottom-up" through pure computation and Deutsch is "side-ways" through the laws of physics that "run on top of" those computations. So Deutsch is working with emergent laws, not fundamental, and yet he reached the same conclusion (a multiverse). Wolfram is working with a purely algorithmic/computational starting point, so that his model would encapsulate Deutsch's as a special case. And then Langran would take Wolfram's purely computational theory and model that onto pure information/meaning that is being processed not by a physical universe but instead by info-cognition, i.e. information processing itself by knowing itself. And then the physical universe would be emergent from that. So it's a three-part structure that has two levels of emergence. Or something like that. Like I said, I'm just tossing ideas out there and having fun with how AI can link them.

Yeah, I understand. But I'm sure it's still fun to go through, if you knows these guys. Which I don't.