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 <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> wrote: > > > You mean, besides the archive of this list? ;) > > On May 1, 2:16 pm, "Brian Tenneson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> 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 <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> 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 [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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 [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
