This is a continuation of the post “The CTMU and Consciousness”.
As already noted, there are two Nobel Prize-winning physicists in this distribution, both affiliated with Cambridge: Brian Josephson (1973), one of the youngest Nobel Laureates ever (he received the prize for work done when he was just 22), and Roger Penrose (2020), who by wide consensus belongs to the crème de la crème of mathematical physicists. Roger has thus far been silent. However, there is now one more active participant in the discussion, “DG” (an associate of Jack Sarfatti; Jack’s reference to “Zielinski” corresponds to “PZ” in part 1).
Here, I continue the discussion by responding to critiques of Immanuel Kant, explaining how his work relates to the CTMU. In a nutshell, the same applies to Kant’s philosophy that applies to every other important work of philosophy in history: it culminates in the CTMU, the supertautological convergence of metaphysics. [Pardon my seeming impatience in some parts of this exchange, as it is not entirely unreasonable under the circumstances.]
Jack leads off with a pun.
Jack: “Kant’s work was DOO DOO! ;-) It Kant work!”
CML: Kant's work is both insightful and influential. However, Jack is right - it doesn't quite work. There was a problem or two with it. It needed a little restructuring.