Re: Jason + Stathis

2007-02-11 Thread Brent Meeker

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

2007-02-11 Thread Jason Resch
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

2007-02-11 Thread John Mikes
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

2007-02-11 Thread Hal Ruhl


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

2007-02-11 Thread Hal Ruhl

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

2007-02-11 Thread Tom Caylor

 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

2007-02-11 Thread Brent Meeker

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