Dear Brian,
Russell Standish has a book summarising some stuff, also many references
at the end (will bring you up to speed on definitions like ASSA/RSSA):
http://www.hpcoders.com.au/nothing.html
(pdf on that site:
http://www.hpcoders.com.au/theory-of-nothing.pdf)
Schmidhuber has interesting papers:
http://www.idsia.ch/~juergen/computeruniverse.html
And of course you will find many interesting stuff on Bruno's site (I
have yet to read most of it - Sane 2004 paper will start you on the
trip. ;-)
http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/publications.html
Not widely discussed on this list but I think of interest is this topic:
http://digitalphysics.org/
And you know Tegmark, of course :-)
As for the archives - I think there is a wealth of information to be
mined there, but I also find this a pretty tedious way of getting at the
information.
There was an everything wiki once, I gather, why did the project die?
Would there be interest on the list in starting a collaboration to get a
wiki going and extract stuff from the archives?
Cheers,
Günther
Brian Tenneson wrote:
> ;)
>
> yes.
>
> I know the "book" of the future is an archive like this, but something
> with a table of contents and index would be pretty sweet. Without such,
> I have trouble reading books.
>
> On Thu, May 1, 2008 at 3:24 PM, nichomachus <Steven.Payne.Long.domain.name.hidden
> <mailto:Steven.Payne.Long.domain.name.hidden>> wrote:
>
>
> You mean, besides the archive of this list? ;)
>
> On May 1, 2:16 pm, "Brian Tenneson" <tenn....domain.name.hidden
> <mailto:tenn....domain.name.hidden>> wrote:
> > Hi All,
> >
> > I was wondering if there was a tome where all these ideas have been
> > collected? I would like to get my hands on such.
> >
> > --Brian
> >
> >
> >
> > On Thu, May 1, 2008 at 12:11 PM, Marchal Bruno <marc....domain.name.hidden
> <mailto:marc....domain.name.hidden>> wrote:
> >
> > > Hello Günther,
> >
> > > >> I have already presented an argument (an easy consequence
> of the
> > > >> Universal Dovetailer Argument, which is less easy probably)
> showing that:
> >
> > > >> - CRH implies COMP
> > > >> - COMP implies the negation of CRH
> > > >> - Thus, with or without COMP (and with or without the MUH)
> the CRH does
> > > >> not hold.
> >
> > > >Regarding:
> >
> > > >COMP implies the negation of CRH
> >
> > > >Is this also in your Sane 2004 paper? (then I missed that
> point) - if
> > > >not, where did you argue this?
> >
> > > It is not in the Sane 2004 paper. I have argue that COMP
> imples NOT-CRH online, in reply to Schmidhuber or someone defending
> the idea that the universe could be the product of a computer program.
> >
> > > Universality, Sigma_1 completeness, m-completness, creativity
> (in Post sense), all those equivalent notion makes sense only
> through complementary notion which are strictly sepaking more
> complex (non RE, productive, ...). The self-introspecting universal
> machine can hardly miss the inference of such "realities", and once
> she distinguishes the 1, 1-plural, 3-person points of view, she has
> to bet on the role of the non computable realities (even too much
> getting not just randomness, like QM, but an hard to compute set of
> anomalous stories (white rabbits, coherent but inconsistent dreams).
> >
> > > It's a bit like "understanding" (putting in a RE set) the
> (code of) the total computable functions, forces us to accept the
> existence of only partially computable functions, which sometimes
> (most of the time, see the thesis by Terwijn) have a non recursive
> domain.
> > > OK, the ontic part of a comp TOE can be no *more* than Sigma_1
> complete, but a non self-computable part of Arithmetical truth and
> analytical truth, is needed to get the *internal* measure, we can't
> even give a name to our first person plenitude and things like that.
> >
> > > The quantified "angel guardian" of a simple Lobian machine
> like PA, that is qG*, is itself Pi_1 in the Arithmetical Truth (see
> Boolos 1993 book). The "God" of PA (already unameable by PA) is
> already NOT omniscient about PA's intelligible reality, if you
> follow the arithmetical interpretation of Plotinus I did propose.
> > > Perhaps this is why the Intelligible has been discovered
> (Plato) before the "ONE" (Plotin). It is far bigger. With comp you
> can restrict the ontic to the Universal Machine (the baby ONE), but
> its intelligible realm is well beyond its grasp.
> > > All this is related to the fact, already understood by Judson
> Webb, that comp is truly a vaccine against reductionist theories of
> the mind.
> >
> > > Have a good day,
> >
> > > Bruno
> >
> > > http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/-
> <http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/%7Emarchal/-> Hide quoted text -
> >
> > - Show quoted text -
>
>
>
> >
--
Günther Greindl
Department of Philosophy of Science
University of Vienna
guenther.greindl.domain.name.hidden
http://www.univie.ac.at/Wissenschaftstheorie/
Blog: http://dao.complexitystudies.org/
Site: http://www.complexitystudies.org
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
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.domain.name.hidden
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list-unsubscribe.domain.name.hidden
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
Received on Thu May 01 2008 - 18:51:40 PDT