Le 11-févr.-07, à 20:18, Jason Resch a écrit :

>
>
> 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?
>  


The problem is that some post have disappeared. For example my 
conversation with hal Finney in the "KNIGHT, KNAVES and ..." thread.
An old post by Schmidhuber has disappeared and has come back, etc. 
Change of archive management changes the adresses of the posts (just 
look at the evrything-list links in my web pages for an example).
So if you refer to post in the archive, you will have to keep the 
changes in such situation. So I would recommend BOTH type of 
references. It is fair with some among us who have do the needed work 
to publish. Especially if they make their paper available on their web 
pages.






>
>>
>>
>> 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.
>> 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. 


This can be a problem with a wiki. For collective multipartite work I 
prefer a mailing list where (normally) you can keep track of the 
evolution of the work. Now a wiki on the acronyms, and on the view of 
the participant, could really help, but not with the risk of making 
life harder, by making incorrect references for example, for those who 
are professional (which have to justify originality for getting their 
bread and stuff like  that etc.).
Sometimes my boss is tired of seeing me explaining all my work before 
submitting. He insists there are some personal copyright issues I 
should be more serious about. Actually I disagree because I have 
already published my main work  (albeit not always in big journal), and 
about what follows my phd work, well it helps me to listen to people 
comments, sure, but the list find it hard, I guess because it supposes 
a good understanding of what has been already done, so I don't worry 
too much (benefices are greater than the danger to be copied).
Most people on this list are quite honest, but this has not always been 
the case.


> Although I do not know how long the images are saved.

You see ...

Perhaps a stable Everything list FAQ would be more relevant (than an 
unstable wiki). May I suggest you to take a look on Michael Clive Price 
"Everett FAQ" which is very good. The articles of an everything-list 
FAQ would have to discussed before on the list, I think. And if and 
when we agree, then it would have to be stabilized (or have explicit 
new editions, with a saving of the old versions). If not the wiki will 
be just another mailing list and it will dubble our efforts, and it 
will make unclear all the processing. OK?

Bruno



--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
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