Everything List FAQ/Glossary/Wiki
John M mentioned in a recent post that many on the Everything List may have conflicting or poor understandings of all the various terminology used on the list. Hal Ruhl brought up the fact that someone had previously tried to maintain an acronym list and FAQ for the Everything List. I thought that a wiki would suit this role rather nicely, and offered to set one up for the list. I've finished setting up the site and it is currently running on a webhost which I use and have much underutilized space on. The URL is: http://everythingwiki.gcn.cx/wiki/index.php?title=Main_Page I envision the wiki being used to explain the various concepts, acronyms, and theories so often mentioned on this list. Every account created on the wiki has its own dedicated page, which I think would be an ideal place for people to describe their backgrounds and the theories they subscribe to. 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 -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Searles' Fundamental Error
Bruno, I 'may' come back to your (appreciated) remarks, to the last 'why' I respond: "Because I feel my head in all these ideas - back-and-forth - like looking at a busy beehive and trying to follow ONE particular bee in it." John On 2/9/07, Bruno Marchal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Le 08-févr.-07, ŕ 00:10, John M a écrit : > > > Mark: > > fascinating. I like to ask such stupid questions myself. > > > > On my question 'what is consciousness' the best answer I got was: > > "everybody knows it" from a prof-fessional. > > (Yes, but everybody knows it differently). > > > > Existence??? I wonder how the honored listers will vote, I would > > resort to "the process (we think) we are in." What process? I can't > > see it from the inside. > > > See my posts to Mark and Torgny. > > > > > > > With 'physical' I take a more primitive stance:I consider it > > epistemological over our past history, to put primitive and > > unsatisfactory experiences (observations?) into position of the > > premature image we formed about the world in the past (including now). > > Matter-concept is still an imprtant part of it, even in E~m relations. > > Sensorial - in it- still has the upper hand over mental. > > Then, all what I say, is that comp would be false. I am open to that > idea, and that is why I try to show comp being falsifiable (but surely > not yet falsified). > > > > > I try to include ideation into matterly. And (after Planck) in the > > reverseorder. My firm opinion is: I dunno. We are not yet epistemized > > enough to form an educated guess. > > I think a excellent "epistemization" has been done from Pythagorus to > Proclus, but then on this matter (!) we have been brainwashed by 1500 > years of authoritative aristotelianism. the scientific field of > theology has regressed, but at the same time I would like to insist > that even christian theology has been able to keep intact a large part > of Plotinus. Alas, christian theology is incorrect on the part where > they agree with the atheists. > > > > > * > > If I combine the two: "physical existence" (no 'primitive' included, > > rather implying it to ourselves) I visualize the unrestricted > > complexity of 'everything' (already known or not) so any teleported > > remnant of 'us' sounds impossible without 'all' of the > > combinedingredients we are part of. > > Yes. That is provably comp-correct (if I understand you well). > > > > > * > > I carry an intrauniverse view as a human, product of the > > churnings"hereand now" and a BIG"complexity-view" as a > > spaceless-timelessmultiverse > > > OK. > > > > > BY the 'plenitude' about which we cannot know much. In between I > > allow a 'small' complexity-view as pertinent to our universe. For this > > I violate my scepticism against the Big Bang fable - and consider our > > universe from BB to dissipation, the entire history, as evolution. > > > H. To be sure comp is not enough developed so as to say > anything precise on the big bang, but it is hard to believe the big > bang could be a "beginning", with comp. > > > > > I am nowhere ready to outline these superstitions. > > I'm not sure why. > > > Bruno > > > > > > > I can't wait for Bruno's (and others') versions. > > > > John M > > > > and let me join Angelica [Rugrat](???) > > > >> - Original Message - > >> From: Mark Peaty > >> To: everything-list@googlegroups.com > >> Sent: Wednesday, February 07, 2007 11:34 AM > >> Subject: Re: Searles' Fundamental Error > >> > >> Bruno: 'Dont hesitate to ask why, I am sure few people have > >> understand the whole point. Some are close to it, perhaps by having > >> figure this out by themselves.' > >> > >> MP: Don't look at me boss ... I'm just glad I don't have to > >> understand 'it' to be able to exist within it! > >> > >> SO, yes I will ask: What do you mean by 'physical'? > >> > >> And next: what do you mean by 'exist'? > >> > >> These are very basic questions, and in our context here, 'dumb' > >> questions for sure, but without some clarification on how people are > >> using these words, I don't think I can go any further. > >> > >> Regards > >> > >> Mark Peaty CDES > >> > >> [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >> > >> http://www.arach.net.au/~mpeaty/ > >> > >> "I think therefore I am right!" - Angelica [Rugrat] > >> > >> > >> Bruno Marchal wrote:Hi Mark, > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> Le 03-févr.-07, ŕ 17:12, Mark Peaty a écrit : > >>> > > John, I share your apparent perplexity. No matter which way up I > look at the things being discussed on this list, I always end up > back in the same place [and yes it is always 'here' :-] which is > that clearly prior to anything else is the fact of existence. I > have to take this at too levels: > 1/ firstly as sloganised by Mr R Descartes: 'I think therefore I > am', although because I am naturally timid I tend more often to say > something like: 'I think therefore I cannot escape the idea that if > I say I don't exist it doesn't seem to
Re: Everything List FAQ/Glossary/Wiki
Jason, just about the technicalities: I tried the main page with 2-3 topics and the result was "no such title". Categories I did not venture into, because to find the right wording/spelling requires familiarity in our lingo and I had in mind to educate the innocent(ignorant) by passers outside Brunoistic or Schmidthuberistic use of vocabulary (and myself also). Those 'blog=like' concentrates of one's positions on topics will be much better than the spread-and-cut remarks in reply-posts containing 6 - 3000 preliminary texts ea. While I find it useful to let the prerequisites run, it makes it difficult to concentrate on the issue on hand - way above. Or: vice versa. I think the use of this 'wiki' would reduce the redundancy and increase the reasonability of the list by knowing what we are talking about. (This last sentence refers to myself). I think what you started is of a huge benefit to all of us. John M On 2/9/07, Jason <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > On Feb 9, 7:59 am, "John M" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Jason, > > > > the site is great, maybe greater than I can realize today. > > I, as a practical computer illiterate, (never learned any computerese > courses, not even from books) sat before it with awe, - admiring that it > works! > > I might have missed it when I tried: I did not find a place "to look up" > topics (as in an index) to read about - to my choice. Clivkably, or advised > under what name to find it, > > not 'included' in some topic, but alphabetically. Search seemed to work > like a computer: lookiong for 'exact format' only. Maybe this is too hard, > however I trust your skills, professor. > > John, > > Thanks, I think too that the site will evolve into something great. > You are right the search functionality of pages is lacking, however on > the main page ( http://everythingwiki.gcn.cx/wiki/ ) I included a link > to the listing of all pages ( > http://everythingwiki.gcn.cx/wiki/index.php?title=Special:Allpages > ). There is also a listing of Categories ( > http://everythingwiki.gcn.cx/wiki/index.php?title=Special:Categories ) > which I think might be what you are looking for. As long as people > are good about placing articles into categories then the category > system provides an effective organiziation for the site. Clicking any > of those category links will automatically show all articles placed > into that category. Articles can also belong to multiple categories. > I think its up to all of us how useful the site becomes, if we make > the most of all the features the wiki provides we should do pretty > well. > > Regards, > > 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 -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Everything List FAQ/Glossary/Wiki
On Feb 9, 7:59 am, "John M" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Jason, > > the site is great, maybe greater than I can realize today. > I, as a practical computer illiterate, (never learned any computerese > courses, not even from books) sat before it with awe, - admiring that it > works! > I might have missed it when I tried: I did not find a place "to look up" > topics (as in an index) to read about - to my choice. Clivkably, or advised > under what name to find it, > not 'included' in some topic, but alphabetically. Search seemed to work like > a computer: lookiong for 'exact format' only. Maybe this is too hard, however > I trust your skills, professor. John, Thanks, I think too that the site will evolve into something great. You are right the search functionality of pages is lacking, however on the main page ( http://everythingwiki.gcn.cx/wiki/ ) I included a link to the listing of all pages ( http://everythingwiki.gcn.cx/wiki/index.php?title=Special:Allpages ). There is also a listing of Categories ( http://everythingwiki.gcn.cx/wiki/index.php?title=Special:Categories ) which I think might be what you are looking for. As long as people are good about placing articles into categories then the category system provides an effective organiziation for the site. Clicking any of those category links will automatically show all articles placed into that category. Articles can also belong to multiple categories. I think its up to all of us how useful the site becomes, if we make the most of all the features the wiki provides we should do pretty well. Regards, 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 -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Everything List FAQ/Glossary/Wiki
Jason, the site is great, maybe greater than I can realize today. I, as a practical computer illiterate, (never learned any computerese courses, not even from books) sat before it with awe, - admiring that it works! I might have missed it when I tried: I did not find a place "to look up" topics (as in an index) to read about - to my choice. Clivkably, or advised under what name to find it, not 'included' in some topic, but alphabetically. Search seemed to work like a computer: lookiong for 'exact format' only. Maybe this is too hard, however I trust your skills, professor. John Mikes - Original Message - From: Jason Resch To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Thursday, February 08, 2007 5:57 PM Subject: Everything List FAQ/Glossary/Wiki John M mentioned in a recent post that many on the Everything List may have conflicting or poor understandings of all the various terminology used on the list. Hal Ruhl brought up the fact that someone had previously tried to maintain an acronym list and FAQ for the Everything List. I thought that a wiki would suit this role rather nicely, and offered to set one up for the list. I've finished setting up the site and it is currently running on a webhost which I use and have much underutilized space on. The URL is: http://everythingwiki.gcn.cx/wiki/index.php?title=Main_Page I envision the wiki being used to explain the various concepts, acronyms, and theories so often mentioned on this list. Every account created on the wiki has its own dedicated page, which I think would be an ideal place for people to describe their backgrounds and the theories they subscribe to. 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 -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: The Meaning of Life
Le 08-févr.-07, à 23:42, Stathis Papaioannou a écrit : > John, > > I agree: being open-minded is more important than being "right". OK, but being open-minded would be meaningless if the notion of being right was meaningless. Being open-minded means being open to the idea that someone else can be right (independently of the fact that in practice we can only judge personally someone to be interesting or not, but the notion of being right has to be implicit in the background. "To be right" entails we *could* be wrong. Bruno > > Stathis. > >> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> To: everything-list@googlegroups.com >> Subject: Re: The Meaning of Life >> Date: Thu, 8 Feb 2007 17:09:25 -0500 >> >> Thanks, Fellow Uncertain (agnostic...). Let me quote to your question >> at the end the maxim from Mark's post: >> "I think therefore I am right!" - Angelica [Rugrat] >> (whatever that came from. Of course we value more our (halfbaked?) >> opinion than the wisdom of others.People die for it. >> With the religious marvels: I look at them with awe, cannot state "it >> is impossible" because 'they' start out beyond reason and say what >> they please. >> The sorry thing is, when a crowd takes it too seriously and kill, >> blow up, beat or burn live human beings in that 'belief'. Same, if >> for money. >> >> John M >>> - Original Message - >>> From: Stathis Papaioannou >>> To: everything-list@googlegroups.com >>> Sent: Wednesday, February 07, 2007 6:49 PM >>> Subject: RE: The Meaning of Life >>> >>> I don't "know" a right position from a wrong one either, I'm only >>> trying to make the best guess I can given the evidence. Sometimes I >>> really have no idea, like choosing which way a tossed coin will come >>> up. Other times I do have evidence on which to base a belief, such >>> as the belief that the world was not in fact created in six 24-hr >>> days. It is certainly possible that I am wrong, and the evidence for >>> a very old universe has either been fabricated or grossly >>> misinterpreted, but I would bet on being right. Wouldn't you also, >>> if something you valued depended on the bet? >>> >>> Stathis Papaioannou >>> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: The Meaning of Life Date: Wed, 7 Feb 2007 18:28:25 -0500 And you, Stathis, are very kind to assume that I "know' a right position from a wromng one. I may be in indecision before I denigrate... On the contrary. if someone 'believes' the 6 day creation, I start speculating WHAT "days" they could have been metaphorically, starfting before the solar system led us to our present ways of scheduling. Etc. Etc. Accepting that whatever we 'believe' is our epistemic achievement, anything 'from yesterday' might have been 'right' (maybe except the old Greeks - ha ha). in their own rites. Sometimes I start an argument about a "different" (questionable?) belief just to tickle out arguments which I did not consider earlier. But that is my dirty way. I am a bad judge and always ready to reconsider. John M > - Original Message - > From: Stathis Papaioannou > To: everything-list@googlegroups.com > Sent: Tuesday, February 06, 2007 5:54 PM > Subject: RE: The Meaning of Life > > John, > > Some people, including the mentally ill, do have multiple > inconsistent belief systems, but to me that makes it clear that at > least one of their beliefs must be wrong - even in the absence of > other information. You're much kinder to alternative beliefs than > I am, but in reality, you *must* think that some beliefs are > wrong, otherwise you would hold those beliefs! For example, if you > say you don't personally believe the earth was created in six > days, but respect the right of others to believe that it was, what > you're really saying is that you respect the right of others to > have a false belief. I have no dispute with that, as long as it is > acknowledged. > > Stathis Papaioannou > >> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> To: everything-list@googlegroups.com >> Subject: Re: The Meaning of Life >> Date: Tue, 6 Feb 2007 11:07:52 -0500 >> >> Stathiws, >> no question about that. What I was trying to stress was the >> futility of arguing from one belief system (and stressing its >> solely expanded "truth") against a different "truth and evidence" >> carrying OTHER belief system. >> >> BTW: don't schyzophrenics (maybe multiple personalitics) accept >> (alternately) ALL the belief systems they carry? (=layman asking >> the professional). >> IMO we all (i.e. thinking people) are schizophrenix with our >> rather elastic ways of intelligence. Beatus ille qui est >> "onetrackminded"..(the 9th beatitude). >> >> To your initial sent
Re: Searles' Fundamental Error
Le 08-févr.-07, à 00:10, John M a écrit : > Mark: > fascinating. I like to ask such stupid questions myself. > > On my question 'what is consciousness' the best answer I got was: > "everybody knows it" from a prof-fessional. > (Yes, but everybody knows it differently). > > Existence??? I wonder how the honored listers will vote, I would > resort to "the process (we think) we are in." What process? I can't > see it from the inside. See my posts to Mark and Torgny. > > With 'physical' I take a more primitive stance: I consider it > epistemological over our past history, to put primitive and > unsatisfactory experiences (observations?) into position of the > premature image we formed about the world in the past (including now). > Matter-concept is still an imprtant part of it, even in E~m relations. > Sensorial - in it - still has the upper hand over mental. Then, all what I say, is that comp would be false. I am open to that idea, and that is why I try to show comp being falsifiable (but surely not yet falsified). > I try to include ideation into matterly. And (after Planck) in the > reverse order. My firm opinion is: I dunno. We are not yet epistemized > enough to form an educated guess. I think a excellent "epistemization" has been done from Pythagorus to Proclus, but then on this matter (!) we have been brainwashed by 1500 years of authoritative aristotelianism. the scientific field of theology has regressed, but at the same time I would like to insist that even christian theology has been able to keep intact a large part of Plotinus. Alas, christian theology is incorrect on the part where they agree with the atheists. > * > If I combine the two: "physical existence" (no 'primitive' included, > rather implying it to ourselves) I visualize the unrestricted > complexity of 'everything' (already known or not) so any teleported > remnant of 'us' sounds impossible without 'all' of the > combined ingredients we are part of. Yes. That is provably comp-correct (if I understand you well). > * > I carry an intrauniverse view as a human, product of the > churnings "here and now" and a BIG "complexity-view" as a > spaceless-timeless multiverse OK. > BY the 'plenitude' about which we cannot know much. In between I > allow a 'small' complexity-view as pertinent to our universe. For this > I violate my scepticism against the Big Bang fable - and consider our > universe from BB to dissipation, the entire history, as evolution. H. To be sure comp is not enough developed so as to say anything precise on the big bang, but it is hard to believe the big bang could be a "beginning", with comp. > I am nowhere ready to outline these superstitions. I'm not sure why. Bruno > > I can't wait for Bruno's (and others') versions. > > John M > > and let me join Angelica [Rugrat](???) > >> - Original Message - >> From: Mark Peaty >> To: everything-list@googlegroups.com >> Sent: Wednesday, February 07, 2007 11:34 AM >> Subject: Re: Searles' Fundamental Error >> >> Bruno: 'Dont hesitate to ask why, I am sure few people have >> understand the whole point. Some are close to it, perhaps by having >> figure this out by themselves.' >> >> MP: Don't look at me boss ... I'm just glad I don't have to >> understand 'it' to be able to exist within it! >> >> SO, yes I will ask: What do you mean by 'physical'? >> >> And next: what do you mean by 'exist'? >> >> These are very basic questions, and in our context here, 'dumb' >> questions for sure, but without some clarification on how people are >> using these words, I don't think I can go any further. >> >> Regards >> >> Mark Peaty CDES >> >> [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> >> http://www.arach.net.au/~mpeaty/ >> >> "I think therefore I am right!" - Angelica [Rugrat] >> >> >> Bruno Marchal wrote:Hi Mark, >>> >>> >>> >>> Le 03-févr.-07, à 17:12, Mark Peaty a écrit : >>> John, I share your apparent perplexity. No matter which way up I look at the things being discussed on this list, I always end up back in the same place [and yes it is always 'here' :-] which is that clearly prior to anything else is the fact of existence. I have to take this at too levels: 1/ firstly as sloganised by Mr R Descartes: 'I think therefore I am', although because I am naturally timid I tend more often to say something like: 'I think therefore I cannot escape the idea that if I say I don't exist it doesn't seem to sound quite right', >>> >>> >>> That is good for you. I would say that Descartes gives a correct but >>> useless proof of the existence of Descartes' "first person". It is >>> useless because He knew it before his argument. >>> >>> >>> 2/ the macroscopic corollary of the subjective microcosm just mentioned is that it I try to assert that nothing exists that just seems to be plain wrong, and if I dwell on the situations I find myself in - be
Re: Searles' Fundamental Error
Le 07-févr.-07, à 18:06, Torgny Tholerus a écrit : > Mark Peaty skrev: And next: what do you mean by 'exist'? > > > Our Universe is a mathemathical possibility. That is why our > Universe exists. Every mathematically possible Universe exists in the > same way. But we can not get in touch with any of the other > Universes, so from our point of view does the other Universes not > exist. If comp is true, the "physical" universe is not a mathematical possibility. It is something much more deeply related to mathematics. With the comp hyp "physical universes" emerge necessarily from the interference of all mathematical possibilities, and the physical laws are the invariant of such possibilities for their internal local observers. This entails we *are* in touch with the other universes, and they do exist from our point of view. It is just an open problem if QM really confirms this easily (cf UDA+movie-graph) derivable, from comp, fact. This is what I try to explain in this list since the beginning (and elsewhere before). Tegmark and Schmidhuber have missed this fundamental point. Schmidhuber missed it by his refusal to distinguish between 1 and 3 person points of view, and Tegmark missed it by not postulating the comp hyp (making a little bit "physics" just a geography. Bruno http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ 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 -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Searles' Fundamental Error
Le 07-févr.-07, à 17:34, Mark Peaty a écrit : > Bruno: 'Dont hesitate to ask why, I am sure few people have > understand the whole point. Some are close to it, perhaps by having > figure this out by themselves.' > > MP: Don't look at me boss ... I'm just glad I don't have to > understand 'it' to be able to exist within it! Of course! Like babies can use their brain without understanding it ... > > SO, yes I will ask: What do you mean by 'physical'? It concerns the stable appearance described by hypothetical "physical theories" (like classical mechanics, QM, etc.). I found an argument showing that IF comp(*) is correct THEN those stable appearances emerge from arithmetic as seen from internalized point of views. Those can be described in computer science, and It makes the comp hyp falsifiable: just extract the physical appearance from comp and compare with nature. I will say more in a reply to Stathis. (*) comp means there exist a tuiring emulable level of description of "myself" (whatever I am), meaning I would notice a functional substitution made at that level). > > And next: what do you mean by 'exist'? There are mainly two sort of existence. The absolute fundamental one, and the internal or phenomenological one. If you understand the Universal Dovetailer Argument, you can understand that, assuming the comp hypothesis, it is enough to interpret existence by the existential quantifier in some first order logic description of arithmetic. (like when you say "it exist a prime number"). All the other existence (like headache, but also bosons, fermions, anyons, ...) are phenomelogical, and can be described by "It exist a stable and coherent collection of machines correctly believing from their point of view in "bosons", etc. (I simplify a bit). If you want, I say that IF comp is true, only numbers exist, all the rest are dreams with relative degree of stability. > > These are very basic questions, and in our context here, 'dumb' > questions for sure, but without some clarification on how people are > using these words, I don't think I can go any further. You are welcome, and I don't believe there is dumb questions. I have developed the Universal dovetailer argument, in the seventies, and it was a pedagogical tools for explaining the mathematical theory which consist in interviewing an universal machine on its possible physics. I have published all this in the eighties and defend it as a thesis in the nineties. I am aware it goes against materialism (based on the concept of primary (aristotelian) materialism. All this provides mathematical clean interpretation of neoplatonist researchers (like Plato, Plotinus, Proclus). If you want I show that concerning machine's theology it is wrong to reify matter or nature. Note that I am using the term "materialism" in a weaker sense than its use in philosophy of mind. But materialism I mean the metaphysical reification of Matter. The idea that some primitive matter exists. Hope this helps a bit. Perhaps you could study my last version of UDA in my SANE04 paper to see the point. You can ask question for any step. Then if you are willing to invest in mathematical logic, you will see how the UDA can be made entirely mathematical *and* falsifiable. Bruno http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ 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 -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: ASSA and Many-Worlds
Le 07-févr.-07, à 02:45, Hal Ruhl a écrit : > Given an uncountably infinite number of objects generated from a > countably infinite list of properties and an uncountably infinite > number of UD's in the metaphor I can not see an issue with this re my > model. As I said above "Our World" can be as precisely as random as > it needs to be. I don't understand. Bruno http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ 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 -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: ASSA and Many-Worlds
Le 06-févr.-07, à 03:06, Russell Standish a écrit : > The informatic "destructive effects" are due to conflicting > information reducing the total amount of information. Perhaps you could expand? Bruno http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ 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 -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---