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 everything-list@googlegroups.com
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
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

Reply via email to