On 2/11/07, Bruno Marchal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Jason, > > I am not against a wiki for the list, but I think it could lead to some > difficulties. I have already asked more than one time what are people's > main assumptions, without much success (only Hal Finney answered). For > my part I am just explaining results I got and published a long time > ago (and it is just a sort miracle which made me defends those result > as a thesis in France in 1998). I'm a bit annoyed for this sometimes. > Concerning the acronyms I am using (comp, UD, UDA, Movie-graph, AUDA G, > G*, ...) I refer to my papers available through my URL. I could make a > list if you want, but if you put them in a wiki, I will insist, for a > change, that correct references are joined.
A list of terms would be very useful. As for keeping references joined, so for instance on the article that defines the UD you would like a references section on the bottom which links to one of your pages or one of the posts in this discussion thread? I favor that, is it what you meant? > > I am grateful for the kindness and patience of the people in this list. > There are not many person interested in such subject, which of course > is a difficult interdisciplinary subject, it helps me a lot. But to be > honest, the only notion I could (but not yet have) borrowed from the > list discussion is Bostrom Self-Sampling Assumption wording, and his > notion of Observer Moment. Indeed (n-person-points of view of the true > Sigma1 sentences can provide n-person points of view observer moment; > see below) > Schmidhuber left the list after denying any sense in the first and > third person notion (he is not open on the mind-body problem). I don't > remember Tegmark having participate in the list, except indirectly > through a post of James Higgo quoting a personal conversation where > Tegmark explains why he does not infer quantum immortality from quantum > suicide. Tegmark is a bit fuzzy on what is an observer. Personally I believe that the mailing list would be formidably enhanced > if we could use a simple pen for simple drawing. Just a pen. I mostly > reason with simple images. And this is even more true about the quantum > topological target which can be seen as an intermediate step between > mind/matter and numbers. After a cursory look I did come across this service: http://www.imaginationcubed.com/LaunchPage Which lets one draw an image, and then forward it to an e-mail address. Others can then further edit it with their own writings and color. Although I do not know how long the images are saved. Jason --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
