O      like i said first, i'm not the first person to
        O       think along these lines. in one sense this is
                disappointing, but in another, at least i'm no
OOO             longer afraid i'm insane.
OOOO            
   OO           Max Tegmark has a paper which was the cover
  OO            story for new scientist magazine. he too argues
  OOOO          that mathematical existence is the same as
  OOO   O       physical existence. his system, however, uses
   OO   OO      sets of axioms, not Turing machines. i think
   OOOO         Turing machines are easier to reason about (and
   OOOO         allow us to discuss complexity, for instance.)
 OOOOO          http://www.hep.upenn.edu/~max/toe_press.html
OOOOOO          
OOO  OO         
OOO  OOO        Jurgen Schmidhuber does use Turing machines,
OOOOOOOO        and does discuss Komogorov complexity. he,
OOOOOOOOOO      however, imposes an ordering on his universes,
 OOOOOOOOO      and uses it to argue that typical universes
 OOOOOOOOO      ought to have small K-complexity. i don't see
  OOOOOOOO      why his ordering is valid, and i see good
O  OOOOOOO      reason why K-complexity ought to be large.
O  OOO OOO      http://www.idsia.ch/~juergen/toesv2/
OOOOOOOO O      
OOOOOOOOOO      i'm sure there are others - if you know of any
OOOOOOOOOO      please send them my way.