Re: Jason + Stathis
I just remembered that Google Groups also has a file uploading/hosting feature. You can find it at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list/files. It's already enabled, so please go ahead and use it as an alternative, or for any files that don't belong on Jason's wiki. - Original Message - From: "Jason Resch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Wednesday, February 14, 2007 8:13 AM Subject: Re: Jason + Stathis > On 2/10/07, Russell Standish <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> >> Jason doesn't currently allow file uploads. I tried to upload a copy >> of my book's cover art, but had to link externally instead. Up to him >> whether he turns this feature on or not, I guess... > > > > I've just enabled file uploading, it was disabled in the default > installation of the software. > > 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
On 2/10/07, Russell Standish <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Jason doesn't currently allow file uploads. I tried to upload a copy > of my book's cover art, but had to link externally instead. Up to him > whether he turns this feature on or not, I guess... I've just enabled file uploading, it was disabled in the default installation of the software. 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
On Mon, Feb 12, 2007 at 12:57:07PM +0100, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > 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 > Wikis can be stabilised. Or stable FAQs can be created by taking a snapshot of a Wiki and performing some editorial work. Also wikis are supposed to save the editing history - it should be possible to revert vandalism. I'm quite a fan of wikis, even though I know they're not a panacea. They can be spammed, but then so can email lists, and so far the everything-list has been remarkably robust to being infected with garbage. Hopefully, the same will be true of the wiki. One thing I do suggest is that we link offsite to generally accepted terms. I have done this with links to "Born rule", "Quantum Mechanics" and so on to Wikipedia. Plato.stanford might be a better source for philosophical terms. Anyway, I'm prepared to upload relevant definitions of concepts based on my book as a starting point. I expect corrections :) Cheers -- A/Prof Russell Standish Phone 0425 253119 (mobile) Mathematics UNSW SYDNEY 2052 [EMAIL PROTECTED] Australiahttp://www.hpcoders.com.au --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ 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 doesn't currently allow file uploads. I tried to upload a copy of my book's cover art, but had to link externally instead. Up to him whether he turns this feature on or not, I guess... Cheers On Tue, Feb 13, 2007 at 07:56:41AM +0800, Wei Dai wrote: > > On Feb 13, 3:28 am, Brent Meeker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > You don't need an emailer that understands HTML to look at an attached > > jpeg, like the one I attach to this. :-) On the avoid-l mailing list the > > rule is to keep attachements under 500kb. Perhaps Wei Dai would like to > > adopt a similar rule. Also, I would be pleased to see pictures of you and > > others I communicate with via this list. > > I think I've asked people to place attachments on websites and link to them, > instead of posting them directly. I and probably many others are keeping our > own personal archives of this mailing list. 500kb attachments will quickly > make these archives very cumbersome to maintain. > > Jason's Wiki may be a good place to host these attachments. Wiki's ususally > have an upload function. Alternatively there are plenty of free web host > providers that can be found by doing a Google search. > > > > -- A/Prof Russell Standish Phone 0425 253119 (mobile) Mathematics UNSW SYDNEY 2052 [EMAIL PROTECTED] Australiahttp://www.hpcoders.com.au --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ 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 Feb 13, 3:28 am, Brent Meeker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > You don't need an emailer that understands HTML to look at an attached > jpeg, like the one I attach to this. :-) On the avoid-l mailing list the > rule is to keep attachements under 500kb. Perhaps Wei Dai would like to > adopt a similar rule. Also, I would be pleased to see pictures of you and > others I communicate with via this list. I think I've asked people to place attachments on websites and link to them, instead of posting them directly. I and probably many others are keeping our own personal archives of this mailing list. 500kb attachments will quickly make these archives very cumbersome to maintain. Jason's Wiki may be a good place to host these attachments. Wiki's ususally have an upload function. Alternatively there are plenty of free web host providers that can be found by doing a Google search. --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ 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
Le 12-févr.-07, à 03:04, Hal Ruhl a écrit : > > > 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. It would indeed be nice if Jason succeed in helping you to put your ideas in some stable forms. I guess you recall I have made long and repeated tries years ago, but at some point your talk was to fuzzy to proceed (too much undefined jargon). 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: Jason + Stathis
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 --~--~-~--~~~---~--
Re: Jason + Stathis
Le 11-févr.-07, à 18:50, Brent Meeker a écrit : > > 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. Well, first Wei Dai, the list master, has explicitly ask us, sometimes ago, not to send attachment. Nevertheless, he has tolerated apparently some sending of little attachment, I have already done. But 1) those who have no mailer capable of understanding HTML did not get the message, or when they got it, it was through many clicking. 2) the drawing appears with the personal message of Google, making the text+drawing less fluid. The idea of a pen is to be able to mix text and little drawing quickly in bot writing/drawing and reading. The one who will succeed in a standard commercializing of such an emailer with JUST ONE pen (NOT a pen + a brush + color etc.) will be rich. Thanks for crediting me with the idea, I will ask only 1% of the benefice :-) Those drawings can be deformed with the condition that the deformation concerves the topology (a vague circle should remain a vague circle, not becoming a curved line with extremities). 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: 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: 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 see
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
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 -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
