I would be interested in seeing the wiki, if not helping in any (small) way
I could.
Thank you, Günther.
On Thu, May 1, 2008 at 3:50 PM, Günther Greindl <guenther.greindl.domain.name.hidden>
wrote:
>
> 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<http://www.idsia.ch/%7Ejuergen/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<http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/%7Emarchal/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/->
> > <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 - 19:00:58 PDT