Does the CTMU hold its own as a theory of the universe?

Christopher Langan, the smartest man in America, that is if you take I.Q as an absolute measure of ones intelligence. Langan, a bouncer and author is most well known for an estimated I.Q believed to be in the range of 200. As well as being outrageously smart, he is also the inventor and author of a theory of the universe known as 'CTMU' or 'Cognitive-Theoretic Model of the Universe' published in 1985.

The CTMU seems to be from first observation a meta-physical attempt at understanding the universe. If you were hoping for a hard scientific paper, this isn't it. What I mean by that is the theory contains minimal actual mathematical physics, it reasoning relies heavily on meta-physical logic and can't be measure empirically.

As far as a theory of the universe goes, philosophically it seems to hold its own. Fundamentally it is another theory of everything, so it isn't original in any sense of the word. It borrows heavily from other ideas throughout history and seems to resemble idealism. The CTMU is unoriginal ideas wrapped in original wallpaper and clever language.

The core seems to be that perception is fundamental to reality and that reality itself is a perceptual structure which uses rules of syntactic grammar to self-reference itself into existence from nothing. In layman terms; it theorises that reality is everything, reality bought itself into existence, god is therefore reality and everything in reality and by that reasoning we must also be part of god since we are part of reality.

As a piece of language writing, the text is impressive. Chris Langan clearly has excellent talent in that department. However scientifically speaking there is a reason why the CTMU has received very limited press or peer reviews since its inception in 1985. It does not follow the traditional pattern of scientific debate and reasoning and contains very little of actual test-able data if any at all. Since it relies heavy on meta-physical and philosophical argumentation, the best you can call it is a good work of pseudo-science.

It can in some aspects be unreadable and non-sensicle, whether Chris does this intentionally is up for debate but it contains many self-invented terms which leave the reader scratching their head. It complicates what by all means should be kept simple.

The CTMU in a nutshell is another 'the universe is reality, and reality is god' theory with the guise of science but very little of it actually evident inside of it. The psuedo-science base relies heavily on philosophical logic and linguistics as opposed to actual hard physics. It is worth a read purely on the basis of it's unique writing style and heavy word usage, however as an actual plausable scientific theory, it comes up short.