Does the Anthropic Principle Explain Anything?

[Squidgers]

When did I say Langan believes his words are the ontological reality? I do believe there are people who think abstractions of particles, fields, or strings are the ontological reality, those people we call "materialists". Not the actual words "fields" or "strings", but the mathematical concepts they are pointing to in any given abstract theory of physics. I don't see how Langan's approach is any different. Like I said, I have no problem with someone using these things as a heuristic device to become a "psychoactive in ones spiritual development", but that is not my sense of what Langan is doing. He is trying to set up his CMTU as the conclusive framework for grasping ontological reality. I could be wrong about that, but consider this quote:

https://www.cosmosandhistory.org/index. ... e/694/1157

Do you know if Langan is explicit on what his language of reality is (as opposed to what it does) or how it interfaces with known mathematical sciences? (It must have some proto-mathematical structure to account for mathematical structures in spacetime)

No, I have no idea. You should check his papers out at the website and see if you can discern that. The quoted language seems indicative to me of his overall approach. For instance, "[CMTU] is thus capable of autonomously validating certain religious claims of truth and consistency... ". What does that phrase mean?

I've read a couple. he seems to make big claims about CMTU being able to explain certain paradoxes or spiritual ideas, but he does it in a matter of fact or offhand way rather than offering an explanation.

[AshvinP]

Do you know if Langan is explicit on what his language of reality is (as opposed to what it does) or how it interfaces with known mathematical sciences? (It must have some proto-mathematical structure to account for mathematical structures in spacetime)

.
No, I have no idea. You should check his papers out at the website and see if you can discern that. The quoted language seems indicative to me of his overall approach. For instance, "[CMTU] is thus capable of autonomously validating certain religious claims of truth and consistency... ". What does that phrase mean?

I've read a couple. he seems to make big claims about CMTU being able to explain certain paradoxes or spiritual ideas, but he does it in a matter of fact or offhand way rather than offering an explanation.

Yeah I got that impression as well. Maybe he clarifies more in his interviews, but you would think that sort of thing would be in the papers. Which is why I generally think his approach is counter-productive.