Resources for quantum decision theory research

(pdf) http://​​arxiv.org/​​PS_cache/​​gr-qc/​​pdf/​​9411/​​9411073v1.pdf
(pdf) http://​​arxiv.org/​​PS_cache/​​arxiv/​​pdf/​​0710/​​0710.0435v3.pdf
http://​​arxiv.org/​​abs/​​hep-th/​​0612185
http://​​arxiv.org/​​abs/​​0906.2718
http://​​www.quan­tiki.org/​​wiki/​​Mul­ti­par­tite_en­tan­gle­men­t
http://​​prl.aps.org/​​ab­stract/​​PRL/​​v100/​​i9/​​e090502
http://​​dl.acm.org/​​cita­tion.cfm?id=1062335
http://​​prd.aps.org/​​ab­stract/​​PRD/​​v7/​​i8/​​p2333_1

http://​​iee­ex­plore.ieee.org/​​xpl/​​free­abs_all.jsp?ar­num­ber=5390026
http://​​arxiv.org/​​find/​​gr-qc,quant-ph/​​1/​​au:+op­pen­heim/​​0/​​1/​​0/​​all/​​0/​​1
(pdf) http://​​www.damtp.cam.ac.uk/​user/​jono/​ar­ti­cles/​twowrongs-1783.pdf

http://​​iee­ex­plore.ieee.org/​xpl/​free­abs_all.jsp?ar­num ber=5391327

I wrote out some para­graphs about how these are very in­com­plete and un­ordered but use­ful and blabla bla dis­claimers and trad­ing quan­tum in­for­ma­tion be­tween su­per­in­tel­li­gences that’d seem­ingly been lost to the en­vi­ron­ment and trad­ing be­tween quan­tum branches and bla bla and how cos­molog­i­cal nat­u­ral se­lec­tion is rele­vant but Less Wrong ate it and I can’t con­vince my­self to rewrite it. So, here. My not-pas­sive-agres­sive apolo­gies for be­ing schizo­ty­pal. The marginal cost of my efforts is prob­a­bly higher than your model sug­gests, but I re­al­ize that nonethe­less I’m pro­mot­ing sub­op­ti­mal norms for what does or doesn’t get to count as a well-in­ten­tioned effort at com­mu­ni­ca­tion. I ac­cept all down­votes as jus­tified.