Re: Jason + Stathis

From: John Mikes <>
Date: Sun, 11 Feb 2007 16:02:27 -0500


the reason why I was so happy with your Wiki-idea and solution were MY
in reading (mainly in Bruno's correspondence) - getting lost in 'letters',
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.

  "...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.
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
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...)


On 2/11/07, Jason Resch <> wrote:
> On 2/11/07, Bruno Marchal <> 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:
> 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
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
For more options, visit this group at
Received on Sun Feb 11 2007 - 16:02:41 PST

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Fri Feb 16 2018 - 13:20:13 PST