The True purpose and Meaning of the CTMU from a Bird’s Eye View

A New Kind of Reality Theory
No longer is empathy a moral and spiritual attribute of personhood of social human social interaction. Like the jerk of a tapped knee and the dilation of a pupil in sudden darkness, empathy appears to be just another biological phenomenon reducible to the ubiquitous of proton, neutron, and electron in random chunks of matter.
So much for vaunted intelligence and empathy as evidence for human spiritual ascendancy, what of spirituality itself? World literature has several telling adumbrations of modern scientific research. Fyodor Dostoievsky described in his tragicomic novel The Idiot, Fyodor Dostoievsky described the expansive feeling of beatitude experienced by his protagonist Prince Myshkin just prior to the onset of epileptic seizures. In so far as Dostoievsky himself suffered from epilepsy, these fictionalized accounts seem to have been taken directly from the author’s personal experience… and the Great Russian novelist was far from alone. Many patients afflicted with temporal lobe epilepsy have reported that when a spell overtakes them, they “see God” or experience “enlightenment”. Searching for an explanation, neurologists were finally able to find a connection between temporal lobe epilepsy and spontaneous religious feelings: epileptic seizures can stimulate a structure called the “God Module” (!) in the temporal-limbic region of the human brain. Inspired by such successes, science is now looking at the neurological correlates of religious experience in general. This emerging field “neuro-theology” has a central premise: that feeling of spirituality are due to the genetic wiring of the human nervous system. Neuro-theological researchers recently conducted an unusual experiment where Tibetan Buddhist tugged on a strand of twine as he entered a state of meditative transcendence. Upon the prearranged signal, a researcher injected a radioactive racer into an IV line attached to the subject’s arm and scanned his brain with a SPECT. SPECT’S circuits registered a dramatic reduction in neural activity within a specialized region at the top rear of his brain…, an area known to be responsible for translating sensory data into comprehension of the boundary between self and environment. Having shut down his “self-delimiter” module” by meditative sensory deprivation, the subject had destroyed the subjective distinction between internal and external reality and become “one with the universe”. According to brain scans, praying makes Franciscan nuns feel “oneness with God” by suppressing the activity of their self-delimiter modules. The neural aspects of religion are by no means confined to meditation and prayer. A 1997 Japenese study showed rhythmic repetition of ritual chanting and dancing causes a certain brain component, the hypothalamus to generate a mantra transports a yogi to a state of deep inner calm, Sufi mystics feverishly dance themselves to states of excitement in which they feel like “live wires” crackling with the infinite energy of the universe. But does this provide evidence for anything of an objectively transcendental nature? The response of neuro-theology to this question is; given the physical nature of that which is to be explained, there is no need for such a hypothesis. {Cut out from Langan’s text was as Napoleon said}

The elevated status of human consciousness grows ever more precarious upon the swaying tightrope of metaphysical distinctiveness. First came evidence for the physical basis of consciousness in the various aphasias and apraxias associated with brain lesions; then came the frontal assault of operant conditioning on free will; now we have brain-scanned nuns and the possibility of genetically engineered intellectual and spiritual “geniuses”. Intelligence, language, empathy, spirituality… all of our claims to metaphysical distinctiveness seem to be falling beneath the heartless scythe of physical reductionism. So where will we go now, at the dawn of the New Millennium, for renewed confirmation of our “specialness” in the scheme of things? Fortunately, we are not yet facing an ideological dead end. For it seems that just ahead on the intellectual horizon looms a new science of metaphysics… a logical framework in which the importance of humankind is unthreatened by reductionism, and in which the significance of human feelings and emotions is uncompromised by their correlation with lowly biological processes. Rather than declaring us the abject slaves of natural laws beyond our control, this framework yields a new understanding of space and time in which the very laws of physics can be viewed as an expression of our minds. Granted, this framework remains hidden despite its portentious approach. But if it’s ongoing delay contributes to our collective store of humility, perhaps this is not an entirely bad thing. For now we may simply observe that science consists of building accurate conceptual models of the world, and that the theory of models has thus become a crucial ingredient of scientific reality. Perhaps the most distinctive characteristic of model theory is its use of “metalanguages”, or languages that talk about languages, to analyze the mappings, or correspondences, between scientific theories and their universe of discourse. Logically, such meta-languages amount to relationships between theoretical cognition and perceptual reality… or between the mind and the real world of scientific observations. Because these relationships do more than just describe reality-because they turn out to be primary conditions of its existence- they distribute over it on all scales uniting the ubiquitous subjective and objective sides of its nature. The universal distribution of these relationships implies the existence of a homogeneous cognitive and perceptual medium embracing the real universe and propagating the influence of our minds throughout the cosmos. Within the distinctive logical structure of this medium, time and causality turn out not to be confined to the familiar past-to-future direction. Instead, the future-past direction becomes important. The bi-directionality of time implies that the universe is in a state of extended spatiotemporal self-superposition, each of its serial configurations, as defined at each successive moment of time, in contact with all others. At first this seems to say that the universe is completely determined … that as Laplace believed, every state in the universe is implicit in any state. Not only is such an assumption unnecessary, it would ultimately lead to intractable inconsistencies. In fact, the logical structure of space time provides the universe with the wherewithal of being, endowing it with self-creative freedom and permitting it to rise from a sea of undifferentiated ontological potential.
What does this have to do with neuro-theology? Insofar as God is generally defined as the Prime Mover or first principle of reality, God is by definition real, and thus a part of the real universe. This 1st principle is by definition primary — because there is by definition no preexisting reality to contain it-reality cannot properly include it, so the real universe must coincide with God; scientific knowledge is theological knowledge, and science a form of theology. It follows that our ability to use science to better the plight of our species-our capacity to know God and to help others know God- is part of what makes us “special”. And where true science is a key ingredient of our claim to metaphysical distinctiveness, our place in the hierarchy of being cannot be threatened by science done thoroughly, correctly, and without a priori restrictions on our role in the scheme of things. But what is that role? Where does humanity fit into the scheme even now being revealed to us by science…? It turns out we are microsms, images of the universe within the universe. And because of the symmetric connection between source and image, cosmos and mircrocosm, we function as agents through whom the universe realizes it’s being. We are its children and heirs, poised on the threshold of adulthood and charged with shaping destiny itself, with helping the living universe choose its form and content from a background of undifferentiated potential. Though eons removed from the moment of creation, we actively retrodcit it, sending the power of our minds back through time to help the Prime Mover, our parent and provider, self-creatively embody the universe we inhabit.
The CTMU resolves many of the most intractable paradoxes known to physical science while explaining recent data which indicate that the universe is expanding at an accelerating rate. Better yet, it bestows on human consciousness a level of meaning that was previously approached only by religion and mysticism. If it passes the test of time — and there are many good reasons to think that it will — then it will be the greatest step humanity has yet taken towards solving its most timeless mysteries.

Langan, Christopher Michael; Langan, Chris . The Art of Knowing: Expositions on Free Will and Select Essays (Kindle Locations 754–757). Mega Foundation Press. Kindle Edition.

What is the CTMU? How is it Developed? What is the main premise of how it extends investigation beyond merely the scientific method?
Scientific theories are mental constructs that have objective reality as their content. According to the scientific method, science puts objective content first, letting theories be determined by observation. But the phrase “a theory of reality” contains two key nouns, theory and reality, and science is really about both. Because all theories have certain necessary logical properties that are abstract and mathematical, and therefore independent of observation — it is these very properties that let us recognize and understand our world in conceptual terms — we could just as well start with these properties and see what they might tell us about objective reality. Just as scientific observation makes demands on theories, the logic of theories makes demands on scientific observation, and these demands tell us in a general way what we may observe about the universe.
In other words, a comprehensive theory of reality is not just about observation, but about theories and their logical requirements. Since theories are mental constructs, and mental means “of the mind”, this can be rephrased as follows: mind and reality are linked in mutual dependence at the most basic level of understanding. This linkage of mind and reality is what a TOE (Theory of Everything) is really about. The CTMU is such a theory; instead of being a mathematical description of specific observations (like all established scientific theories), it is a “metatheory” about the general relationship between theories and observations…i.e., about science or knowledge itself. Thus, it can credibly lay claim to the title of TOE.
Mind and reality — the abstract and the concrete, the subjective and the objective, the internal and the external — are linked together in a certain way, and this linkage is the real substance of “reality theory”. Just as scientific observation determines theories, the logical requirements of theories to some extent determine scientific observation. Since reality always has the ability to surprise us, the task of scientific observation can never be completed with absolute certainty, and this means that a comprehensive theory of reality cannot be based on scientific observation alone. Instead, it must be based on the process of making scientific observations in general, and this process is based on the relationship of mind and reality. So the CTMU is essentially a theory of the relationship between mind and reality.
In explaining this relationship, the CTMU shows that reality possesses a complex property akin to self-awareness. That is, just as the mind is real, reality is in some respects like a mind. But when we attempt to answer the obvious question “whose mind?”, the answer turns out to be a mathematical and scientific definition of God. This implies that we all exist in what can be called “the Mind of God”, and that our individual minds are parts of God’s Mind. They are not as powerful as God’s Mind, for they are only parts thereof; yet, they are directly connected to the greatest source of knowledge and power that exists. This connection of our minds to the Mind of God, which is like the connection of parts to a whole, is what we sometimes call the soul or spirit, and it is the most crucial and essential part of being human.
Thus, the attempt to formulate a comprehensive theory of reality, the CTMU, finally leads to spiritual understanding, producing a basis for the unification of science and theology. The traditional Cartesian divider between body and mind, science and spirituality, is penetrated by logical reasoning of a higher order than ordinary scientific reasoning, but no less scientific than any other kind of mathematical truth. Accordingly, it serves as the long-awaited gateway between science and humanism, a bridge of reason over what has long seemed an impassable gulf.
A curious child often asks “why” questions, and when an answer is given, immediately asks another why question about the answer. Such a child is unsatisfied with superficial explanations, craving instead an ultimate rationale for existence. Example: “Why is grass green?” “Chlorophyll’s green.” “Why does grass have chlorophyll?” “Because it needs to photosynthesize.” “Why?” “Because it gets its energy from the sun.” “Why does the sun make energy?” “Because it’s a huge fusion reactor that takes energy from atoms.” “Why do atoms have energy?” “Because, as a man named Einstein showed, matter is energy.” “Why?” “Because that’s the way the universe is made.” “What’s the universe and who made it?” At this point, the weary adult has exhausted his scientific knowledge and must begin to deal with the most general and philosophically controversial abstractions in his mental vocabulary… or give up.
Stephen Hawking is among those who have proposed a way out of the regress. In collaboration with James Hartle, he decided to answer the last question — what is the universe and who made it? — as follows. “The universe made itself, and its structure is determined by its ability to do just that.” This is contained in the No Boundary Proposal, which Hawking describes thusly: “This proposal incorporates the idea that the universe is completely selfcontained, and that there is nothing outside the universe. In a way, you could say that the boundary conditions of the universe are that there is no boundary.” To mathematically support this thesis, Hawking infuses the quantum wavefunction of the universe with a set of geometries in which space and time are on a par. The fact that time consists of a succession of
Individual moments thus becomes a consequence of spatial geometry, explaining the “arrow of time” by which time flows from past to future.
Unfortunately, despite the essential correctness of the “intrinsic cosmology” idea (to make the universe self-contained and self-explanatory), there are many logical problems with its execution. These problems cannot be solved simply by choosing a convenient set of possible geometries (structurings of space); one must also explain where these geometric possibilities came from. For his own part, Hawking explains them as possible solutions of the equations expressing the laws of physics. But if this is to be counted a meaningful explanation, it must include an account of how the laws of physics originated… and there are further requirements as well. They include the need to solve paradoxical physical conundrums like ex nihilo cosmogony (how something, namely the universe, can be created from nothing), quantum nonlocality (how subatomic particles can instantaneously communicate in order to preserve certain conserved physical quantities), accelerating cosmic expansion (how the universe can appear to expand when there is no external medium of expansion, and accelerate in the process to boot), and so on. Even in the hands of experts, the conventional picture of reality is too narrow to meaningfully address these issues. Yet it is too useful, and too accurate, to be “wrong”. In light of the fundamentality of the problems just enumerated, this implies a need for additional logical structure, with the extended picture reducing to the current one as a limiting case.
The CTMU takes the reflexive self-containment relationship invoked by Hawking and some of his cosmological peers and predecessors and explores it in depth, yielding the logical structures of which it is built. Together, these structures comprise an overall structure called SCSPL, acronymic for SelfConfiguring Self-Processing Language. The natural terminus of the cosmological self-containment imperative, SCSPL is a sophisticated mathematical entity that possesses logical priority over any geometric explanation of reality, and thus supersedes previous models as a fundamental explanation of the universe we inhabit. In doing so, it relies on a formative principle essential to its nature, the Telic Principle. A logical analogue
of teleology, the Telic Principle replaces the usual run of ontological hypotheses, including quasi-tautological anthropic principles such as “we perceive this universe because this universe supports our existence,” as the basis of cosmogony.
Since the dawn of our species, human beings have been asking difficult questions about themselves, the universe and the nature of existence, but have lacked a unified conceptual framework strong and broad enough to yield the answers. Enter the Cognitive-Theoretic Model of the Universe (CTMU).

In its exciting development of these and other ideas, the Cognitive-Theoretic Model of the Universe helps us to understand not only the nature of reality, but the integral role played by human beings in the creation and maintenance of the world they inhabit. In the process, the CTMU enables us to comprehend the psychological, metaphysical, and ethical ramifications of the relationship between man and the cosmos, and thus what it means to be human.
Among the questions that are answered within the framework of the CTMU: What is the nature of humanity’s relationship with God? What is our relationship with each other on individual and cultural levels? Do human beings possess free will? Is there life after death? Is there a physical basis for spirituality? Where did the universe come from? Is there such a thing as absolute good or absolute evil? These are just a few of the many burning philosophical dilemmas that mankind has pondered since its infancy. When these dilemmas are finally considered in the advanced conceptual framework of a true TOE like the CTMU, their answers fall into place as though under the influence of an attractive force. The mystery melts away, but not the wonder.
In its role as a comprehensive theory of reality, the Cognitive-Theoretic Model of the Universe serves as a firm basis for the unification of science and theology, leading us inevitably in the direction of intellectual enlightenment and a collective spiritual awakening. The traditional Cartesian divider between body and mind, matter and thought, science and spirituality is penetrated by logical reasoning of a higher order than ordinary scientific reasoning, but no less scientific than any other kind of mathematical truth. Accordingly, it serves as the long-awaited gateway between science and humanism, a bridge of reason over what has long seemed an impassable gulf.
The avowed goal of physics is to produce what is sometimes called a “Theory of Everything” or TOE. As presently conceived, the TOE is thought to consist of one equation describing a single “superforce” unifying all the forces of nature (gravity, electromagnetism, and the strong and weak nuclear forces). But this is actually an oversimplification; every equation must be embedded in a theory, and theories require models for their proper interpretation. Unfortunately, the currently available theory and model lack three important
properties: closure, consistency and comprehensivity. That is, they are not self-contained; they suffer from various intractable paradoxes; and they conspicuously exclude or neglect various crucial factors, including subjective ones like consciousness and emotion. Since the excluded factors fall as squarely under the heading everything as the included ones, a real TOE has no business omitting them. So as now envisioned by physicists, the TOE is misnamed as a “theory of everything”.
The CTMU, on the other hand, is a TOE framework in which “everything” really means everything. Whereas the currently-envisioned TOE emphasizes objective reality at the expense of its subjective counterpart (mind), the CTMU places mind on the agenda at the outset. It does this not by making assumptions, but by eliminating the erroneous scientific assumption that mind and objective reality can be even tentatively separated. To do this, it exploits not just what we know of objective reality — the so-called “everything” of the standard TOE — but also what we know of the first word in “TOE”, namely theory. In other words, it brings the logic of formalized theories to bear on reality theory.
Although this is a mathematically obvious move, it has been almost completely overlooked in the physical and mathematical sciences. By correcting this error, the CTMU warrants description as a theory of the relationship between the mind of the theorist and the objective reality about which it theorizes, completing the program of subjective-objective unification already inherent in certain aspects of the formalisms of relativity and quantum mechanics. In the process, it also brings the quantum and classical realms of physics into the sort of intimate contact that can only be provided by a fundamentally new model of physical and metaphysical reality…a model truly worthy of being called a “new paradigm”.
Fundamental to this new model are revisions of basic physical concepts including space, time, matter and motion. Space, once a featureless medium aimlessly proliferating through cosmic expansion, becomes a distributed syntactic structure iteratively reborn of matter and subject to conspansive evacuation and rescaling. Time, previously envisioned as a quasi-spatial
linear dimension along which the cosmos hurtles like a runaway locomotive, becomes the means by which the universe self-configures… an SCSPLgrammatical symphony of logico-linguistic transformations played by the self-creating cosmos. Lumps of matter, no longer the inert pawns of external laws of physics, become SCSPL syntactic operators containing within themselves the syntactic rules by which they internally process each other to create new states of physical reality. And motion, once seen as the passage of material attribute-ensembles through adjacent infinitesimal cells of empty space displaying them as content, becomes an iterative, self-simulative sequence of endomorphic self-projections by moving bodies themselves.
The name literally says it all. The phrase “Cognitive-Theoretic Model of the Universe” contains three main ingredients: cognitive theory, model, and universe. Cognitive theory refers to a general language of cognition (the structural and transitional rules of cognition); universe refers to the content of that language, or that to which the language refers; and model refers to the mapping which carries the content into the language, thus creating information. The way in which the title brings these three ingredients together, or “contracts” their relationship to the point of merging, reflects their perfect coincidence in that to which the title implicitly refers, i.e., reality (the physical universe plus all that is required to support its perception and existence). Thus, the CTMU is a theory which says that reality is a self-modeling universal language, or if one prefers, that the universe is a self-modeling language.
The operation of combining language, universe, and model to create a perfectly self-contained metalanguage results in SCSPL, short for Self-Configuring Self-Processing Language. This language is “self-similar” in the sense that it is generated within a formal identity to which every part of it is mapped as content; its initial form, or grammatical “start symbol”, everywhere describes it on all scales. My use of grammatical terminology is intentional; in the CTMU, the conventional notion of physical causality is superseded by “telic causation”, which resembles generative grammar and approaches teleology as a natural limit. In telic causation, ordinary events are predicated on the generation of closed causal loops distributing over time and space. This loop-structure reflects the fact that time, and the spatial expansion of the cosmos as a function of time, flow in both directions — forward and backward, outward and inward — in a dual formulation of causality characterizing a new conceptualization of nature embodied in a new kind of medium or “manifold”.
The CTMU is not just a theory; it is logical model theory applied to metaphysics, and as much a logical necessity as any branch of mathematics or philosophy. One can no more escape from it than from X=X or 1+1=2. But when it comes to something that packs this combination of scope and power, many people, including certified academics, committed atheists, and even some religious believers, are apparently afraid to stare X=X in the face.
Little wonder. After all, once one has beheld the metaphysical structure of reality, there is no longer any such thing as plausible deniability or defense by ignorance; it’s the end of innocence, so to speak. Understandably, many people find that a little scary.

Obviously, the CTMU is a cross-disciplinary project. On what disciplines does it draw?
Because an ultimate theory must accommodate every valid theory pertaining to every part or aspect of reality, it must be approached in the most general terms possible. It must also be formed from the top down rather than just from the bottom up, as it is easier to maintain initial coherence as specificative distinctions are added than to create it ad hoc by cobbling together distinct entities. This means that we must begin with a perfectly general theoretic identity and work inward.
One therefore begins with mathematical logic, all the way from the propositional and predicate calculi to lattices and model theory; arithmetic, abstract algebra, and elementary analysis; basic probability theory and statistics; foundational mathematics, including the theories of sets and categories; and of course, metaphysics and theology. One can then move on to the theories of computation and information; the algebraic and computational theories of language, generative (computational) grammar and the logical theory of metalanguages; geometry and the theory of manifolds; classical and quantum physics, including relativity theory and cosmology; the study of causality and evolution in fields like biology, neuroscience, and cognitive psychology; decision theory and economics, especially as they relate to the nature and maximization of utility and the stratification of utility functions and distributions; and so on up to (intellectual) exhaustion.
I’ve just named what some would view as an intractable multiplicity of disciplines, each splitting into branches, each of which is rich enough to occupy a dedicated specialist throughout his/her entire academic career. This naturally presents a problem for generalist-interdisciplinarians, especially independent researchers without access to academic libraries or the academic grapevine. Outsiders are seldom invited to academic conferences and symposia designed to bring interested academics up to speed on the work of specialists; they may even lack knowledge of up-to-date search terms through which to filter recent academic literature for material relevant to their work. Accordingly, they may find it more expedient to address conceptual deficiencies and solve problems from scratch than to sift through vast piles of academic literature for what they need.
Take mathematics, for example. The scholarly output of the mathematical community has been nothing short of tremendous. This obviously has an upside: mathematicians who are “in the loop” can often find what they need in the prior work of other mathematicians, or at least determine that they’re in virgin territory unexplored by others. But it also has a downside: those who are not in the loop may literally find it easier to discover or rediscover the mathematics they need than to scour the literature for some intelligible indication that somebody else has already written about it, and then decipher and back-engineer the meaning of the complex vocabularies and symbologies employed by previous authors. Personally, I’ve found myself in this position on more than a few occasions.
Much the same applies to other fields of science, where it can be even more difficult to solve problems instead of looking up their solutions. So let’s just say that I’ve had my share of challenges along the way…and that I really appreciate the Internet!
What are you trying to accomplish with the CTMU?
As a general theory of reality — or if one prefers, the general framework of such a theory — the CTMU has potential applications in virtually every field of human inquiry and endeavor.
Human knowledge is a veritable Tower of Babel. Various theories of science, mathematics, and philosophy centering on various parts and aspects of reality are couched in diverse formalisms and vocabularies that often bear little resemblance to each other and exhibit no obvious connections. The situation is reminiscent of a disorderly range of mountains; one can get from one valley to another by climbing the mountains, but by the time one gets to the next valley, the last is no longer visible. Worse, the inhabitants speak a different tongue with no discernable connection to the languages spoken in other valleys.
Theoretical compartmentalization creates the impression that certain parts or aspects of reality are indefinitely related to each other or not related at all, causing rifts and false divisions to appear in our conceptual and perceptual topography, fracturing and fragmenting our worldview. Sometimes, this leads to scientific crises; for example, relativity theory is seemingly impossible to unite with quantum theory. Some rifts may even be seen as mutual irrelevancies; for example, science and theology are often considered to be separated by an unbridgeable gulf, and thus mutually irrelevant.
This is hardly an ideal situation. In a reality where the physical world is held accountable to empirical or mathematical science, any scientifically irrelevant theology is implicitly displaced. This makes theological systems untouchable by science and vice versa, depriving science of moral guidance and encouraging the revelatory creation of different metaphysical realities associated with conflicting promises and instructions involving the physical world. (These metaphysical realities include not just overtly religious frameworks, but the random materialism embraced by many scientists and followers of science.) The resulting disagreements cause, or provide pretexts for, real-world conflicts.
In order to unify and make sense of our knowledge, we must have a universal foundational language in which the special-purpose languages of science can be consistently expressed and interpreted. The fact that this foundational language controls the interpretation of physical theories demands that it be metaphysical; it must refer to science “from above”. Yet, in order to do its job, it must also be necessarily true, which requires that it be a mathematically verified ingredient of science.
In other words, the required metalanguage is that through which science, including both mathematics and empirical applications of mathematics, becomes self-referential and self-normative…the “bootstrapping” of ordinary mathematical-scientific discourse to a higher verificative level of discourse spanning science in its entirety. This requirement leads directly to the CTMU and SCSPL, exactly as described in this interview and elsewhere.
Among the benefits of such a language are these: properly developed and applied, it can synergistically unite the various fields of science; it can remove false conceptual divisions, reconciling science with philosophy and theology, mathematics with physics, and physics with metaphysics; it can promote a general understanding of reality, so that people cannot be so easily cheated of meaning by those wishing to create an illusion of amorphous “relativism” in order to exploit the attending moral vacuum; and it can serve as the basis of an overarching worldview capable of modeling all lesser theories and creeds up to mutual consistency, thereby promoting intellectual accord and conducing to peace and harmony on earth.
The classical Laplacian-deterministic worldview is all but dead. As reality is affected by every possible kind of ambiguity, uncertainty, indeterminacy, and undecidability, no theory of reality can ever be complete. In principle, this makes any such theory a permanent work-in-progress in which a very great deal always remains to be done. Exploration must continue.
However, a theory of reality can still be comprehensive, classifying knowledge in the large rather than determining it exhaustively. The CTMU already provides a self-contained framework for theorization about reality, represents a pronounced departure from established lines of inquiry, and was ready for prime time even as presented in my 2002 overview The Cognitive-Theoretic Model of the Universe: A New Kind of Reality Theory.
Of course, the CTMU doesn’t end with the paper. I do something new to develop and refine it nearly every day, and it all adds up. As a metaphysical (ontological, cosmological, and epistemological) framework, the CTMU has no real competition, and can thus be developed without fear of having to start over from scratch.