Re: Jason + Stathis
Bruno Marchal wrote: ... 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. Bruno I concur, a simple graphic can be very helpful. Why not scan in a drawing and attach it as a jpeg. I often do that in physics discussions. Brent Meeker --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ 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: Jason + Stathis
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 -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Jason + Stathis
Jason, the reason why I was so happy with your Wiki-idea and solution were MY difficulties in reading (mainly in Bruno's correspondence) - getting lost in 'letters', acronyms, multiple-step references to such - all (or most) explained in due course of his writings - as they came forward in his long texts. One just has to find and collect them. JR: ...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?... sounds good as Bruno's credit for his work, but did not help me - I tried to read his website several times and got stuck in (what he calls) technicalities. It is hard to hunt down the acronymicals one by one in a text and find explanatory details. Sometimes they include several steps to combine into an end-result distinction. I don't think I am the only one using a different vocabulary, but claim that there are only a few who familiarized themselves with Brunoese. (Sorry, Bruno for singling out your work, there are others on this list (and elsewhere) who's work is hard to comprehend). I just wrote in this sense to Hal Ruhl. I am no exception myself, I use MY vocabulary, a 'plenitude' that is not that of Plato, a BigBang quite different from the Physical Cosmology fable, evolution, not in Stan Salthe's terms, etc. - So the article defining the concept, as you write, is very much needed in terms for a wider public. If I ever complete my 'Cosmological Narrative' for a page on your Wiki, I will add a list of conceptual explanations on those terms which I know are 'different' for the rest of the world. I may not know all. And I may not explain them sufficiently for a wider audience. As I said I am weary about glossaries: they are always the identifications of somebody who wrote them, others may have different versions of definitions. Especially in new science-branches. (And who needs such in the old ones?) One more thing, maybe addressed to Bruno's 'sketching' remark: A 'graph' is a limited model usually, maybe skimpier than a 'map'. a drawing goes in 2-D, maybe simulated by skill into a 3-D view. Things we talk about (topolog-holographic ideas etc.) go in many dimensions, maybe infinite-D. To 'sketch' in e.g. 5-D would mean a pretty convoluted imaging. To simulate (N)-D graphs in 2-D would make it a simplistic (sketchy?) model-view at best, if not ALL essentials would get lost. I never tried, so please tell me better if I am uninformed. (I don't even mention to 'sketch' a-spatial terms...) John On 2/11/07, Jason Resch [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 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
Re: Jason + Stathis
Hi Jason: I want to thank you for you work re a centralized place to keep the various essences of the list and their variations. Hal Ruhl --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ 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
Hi Bruno: I was using some of the main components of my model to indicate that it allows white rabbits of all degree. Any succession of states is allowed. If the presence of SAS in certain successions requires a certain family of white rabbit distributions then these distributions are present. Hal Ruhl At 04:23 AM 2/9/2007, you wrote: 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: The Meaning of Life
Stathis Papaioannou wrote: Tom Caylor writes: Brent Meeker It does not matter now that in a million years nothing we do now will matter. --- Thomas Nagel We might like to believe Nagel, but it isn't true. Tom That is, it isn't true that in a million years nothing we do now will matter. Why do you say we might like to believe Nagel? Why would anyone want it to be the case that nothing we do now will matter in a million years? In order to think in terms beyond a few generations, we need a basis for meaning that is more universal than explaining and controlling things in our immediate sphere of care abouts, like our animal instincts. (Such a local basis does not support doing things like sacrificing your life for others even a couple thousand years in the future.) But if we reject the ultimate basis, then it feels good to say that it doesn't matter. Tom --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ 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
Stathis Papaioannou wrote: On 2/12/07, *Tom Caylor* [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Stathis Papaioannou wrote: Tom Caylor writes: Brent Meeker It does not matter now that in a million years nothing we do now will matter. --- Thomas Nagel We might like to believe Nagel, but it isn't true. Tom That is, it isn't true that in a million years nothing we do now will matter. Why do you say we might like to believe Nagel? Why would anyone want it to be the case that nothing we do now will matter in a million years? In order to think in terms beyond a few generations, we need a basis for meaning that is more universal than explaining and controlling things in our immediate sphere of care abouts, like our animal instincts. But what we care about right now, may include anything we think of - including how things will be a million years from now, including an abstract principle, even including a fine point of theology. (Such a local basis does not support doing things like sacrificing your life for others even a couple thousand years in the future.) For the very good reason that one cannot foresee the benefits of such sacrifice so far in the future. But people sacrifice for others that they know all the time. But if we reject the ultimate basis, then it feels good to say that it doesn't matter. Tom If we discovered some million year old civilization today I think wonder at its achievements, however paltry, would far outweigh dismay at its wickedness, however extreme. I'm not sure what the significance of this observation is. I don't think it's true. My exhibit A is the Aztecs. Brent Meeker There is a certain impertinence in allowing oneself to be burned for an opinion. -- Anatole France --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ 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 -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---