On 01/08/2014 07:40 PM, Owen Densmore wrote:
> No sorry, no magic, I simply didn't spend the effort to find the arxiv
> entry. My bad.
Damn it. I was hoping you found a browser or email client plugin that
would do something like this:
Link automatically all the highlighted words with the syntax [w:{term}]
on the definition from Wikipedia.
http://wordpress.org/plugins/wikipedia-autolink/
If anyone knows of such a tool, please pass it on.
> But you see, I'm not used to these philosophical discussions, I felt only
> the wiki quote would suffice. And I definitely did not think those
> considering logic would include Godel's later work which was not completed
> during his life. Nor God for that matter.
Yeah, it's strange to me to think of the recent conversation as
"philosophical". To me it seems extremely practical, especially when
thinking about interactive vs. isolated simulation. We had these
discussions about Swarm quite a bit in the early days surrounding the
value of the "probes". The Game of Life is a good example. To what
extent is it important for a user to be able to interfere with the
evolution of the CA? To my mind, allowing interaction _prevents_ the
user from understanding the primary point of the game, i.e. to
(deistically) set up rules and initial state, then see how it turns out.
But people are inherently interactive. They want to engage. And only
a small subset of us really digs pure, autonomous deduction. Most of us
think theistically... a god should interact with its minions.
What sounds philosophical to you has very practical implications for me.
--
glen ep ropella -- 971-255-2847
============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
