chris langan (part 1)

It's kind of circular. Your perception relies solely on your perception...Now we're getting into solipsism so things get weird.

But you're using mathematics to say things about matter and energy, and mathematics came from the mind, not from the world. You need math to say things about the world, and you need to the world to check your math. A reality theory says how the two are related, not just how one or the other works.

A rough estimate was made of Einstein's IQ based on his productions which turned out to be between 160 and 180. If certain lucky events hadn't take place, Einstein would have ended up at the patent office forever (he could have taught math, but he didn't like school). He couldn't even get a job at a university until he had earned a phd, and if not for someone else taking notes for him, he wouldn't have pulled that off. Albert had a lot of contempt for school.

Sorry SJRNWT for not providing you arguments for my claim, but I don't feel like telling it over and over again. My claim is: you're wrong when you say that everything he said can be justified by logic...

This guy is so fucking pretentious I have no idea whether or not to take him seriously. I haven't read any of his work other than his website, which doesn't seem like anything but him talking to himself. No math, no science, no anything ... like a fucked up philosophy paper.

@SupremeChimp How is he pretentious? Everything he said can be justified by logic. As for "no math, no science, no anything", I have to ask... what on Earth are you talking about? This man is extraordinarily intelligent-- do you honestly think his theories and beliefs have no relation to advanced math or science?

You simply cannot comprehend the in depth concepts he speaks of, therefore you immediately refuse them.

Think outside the box.

Please read his 'work'. Its horribly cryptic, and when deciphered it's pointless at best. His main premise is that the 'theory of everything' cannot be determined based on matter and energy, and that it should be justified by perception ... which doesnt make sense as our perception relies solely on matter and energy. That's what I meant by pretentious. He hasnt produced any actual 'work' that would justify his 'smartest man alive' title.

his iq is higher because things changes, i bet 210 wont seem nothing because new things advanced

Sorry, don't, hehe

Yes, that's just one in the series of Langan's "facts". Actually Einstein's IQ has been estimated to be 160, but at least in my book estimates doesn't count much. For example Kasparov's IQ has been estimated to be 190.