Re: A FAQ document proposal for this list

From: Hal Ruhl <>
Date: Thu, 01 Mar 2001 18:15:05 -0800

Dear Bruno:

Thank you for your comments.

Yes I know there are more key words to include, and some to remove as well,
etc. etc.. Any comments are welcome. I hope to have the next reasonable
draft improvement available by Monday. It will be a slow process. To
avoid clutter in the archive, for now I will post all draft iterations to:

I am thinking of adding a section in which model threads would be
contrasted to other FAQ's such as the Everett one where such distinctions
have not been covered in other sections of the one I am putting together.

Again any comments and help are welcome and most likely necessary.


At 3/1/01, you wrote:

>Hello Hal Ruhl
>About your list of questions you are missing some important
>keywords, it seems to me.
>You miss Russell Standish's "occam", George Levy's "plenitude",
>Jacques Mallah's "implementation", Higgo's "buddha", my own
>"phi/psy reversal", etc.
>The introductory dialog by Wei Dai and Hal Finney makes the
>problem clear (a dissatisfaction with Schmidhuber quick
>dissolution of "philosophical" problems in his TOE),
>Ontological consistency in Tegmark sort of TOE, etc.
>Just some remarks.
Received on Thu Mar 01 2001 - 15:30:33 PST

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Fri Feb 16 2018 - 13:20:07 PST