On 2/11/07, Bruno Marchal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 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.
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to firstname.lastname@example.org
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at