[MD] A problem with the MOQ.

[Tuukka Virtaperko]

Ron, all
you were asking for results. The formal approach of the SOQ can be used 
to point out a problem in a popular non-academic metaphysical theory 
known as the Cognitive-Theoretic Model of the Universe (CTMU). The 
author of the theory, Chris Langan, has the the highest IQ of anyone in 
the USA, and he has said he finds Pirsig's writing "nebulous". He 
doesn't understand it, because it's too vague!

The CTMU was published in 2002 as an article in the journal of the 
/International Society for Complexity Information and Design/. It claims 
to portray reality as language. To understand, what that means in the 
context of SOQ, one would have to figure out, whether reality is static 
quality or Dynamic Quality, and whether the CTMU itself is a static 
quality or a Dynamic Quality.

If either reality or the CTMU is Dynamic Quality, the CTMU amounts to 
metaphorical illustrations of the nature of Dynamic Quality. In that 
case it is neither logical nor mathematical in the usual sense of the 
world, and as such, beyond the scope of the SOQ. Rather, it is more like 
a poem or religious work that consists of technical terminology. Langan 
claims the CTMU to be a theory of everything, but if Dynamic Quality 
exists, the CTMU cannot be determined to apply to it in any way. The 
existence of Dynamic Quality cannot be disproven, so the CTMU cannot be 
proven to be a “theory of everything”. It may be assumed to be such a 
theory, but such an assumption is arbitrary and optional: the CTMU may 
also be /not /assumed to be a theory of everything.

If both reality and the CTMU are static quality, then the theory has a 
problem. According to /The Cognitive-Theoretic Model of the Universe: A 
New Kind of Reality Theory/ (2002) the CTMU meets physicist John 
Wheeler’s 1979 criteria for reality theory. (p. 49) One of the criteria 
is called /Law Without Law / Order From Disorder/. It states: 
“Concisely, nothing can be taken as given when it comes to cosmogony.” 
(p. 8)

If the scope of the CTMU extends to contain Dynamic Quality, the theory 
still cannot be determined to “apply” to it. It is just arbitrarily 
included within the scope of the CTMU without anyone knowing, what does 
it mean to state that the CTMU “applies” to it. Consequently, the CTMU 
cannot be proven comprehensive. It is comprehensive if the Mind Equals 
Reality principle is assumed as an axiom. But to do so would be 
arbitrary. And if so is nevertheless done, the CTMU does not satisfy 
Wheeler’s Law Without Law criterion: “nothing can be taken as given when 
it comes to cosmogony.”

The /Metaphysical Autology Principle/ could be stated as an axiom. This 
principle “tautologically renders this syntax closed or self-contained 
in the definitive, descriptive and interpretational senses” (p. 15), and 
would hence entail the nonexistence of Dynamic Quality. But it would be 
arbitrary to have such an axiom, and the CTMU would again fail to 
fulfill Law Without Law.

The formal approach is useful for solving disputes. I have formally 
defined Dynamic Quality as a nonrelativizably used predicate. This 
definition is only about the predicate, and not about what the predicate 
refers to - hence, it is no "proper" or "usual" definition. But it is 
enough to use a derivative of the MOQ - the SOQ - to present a clear 
account of a problem in an unrelated theory: the CTMU.

Best wishes,
Tuukka