[MD] A problem with the MOQ.

[X Acto]

Tuukka had said:
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!
 
Ron:
Well, duh, of course he would'nt because Pirsigs work centers around aesthetics. It is part of the tradition
known as continental philosophy. A high I.Q. does not equal wisdom. 
 
 Tuukka continues:
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.

Ron:
The MoQ points out /fixes every problem in analytic philosphy because it rejects its foundations,
analytic philosphy is about as dead as a philosophy can get.
 
..