Granted, and a good point. Schmidhuber’s paper should be enough of an explanation, but Burfoot’s book lends additional credibility to the notion, and of course gives us additional information on the subject.
The merits of Schmidhuber’s formulation would be discussed in Part II, but it seems that this post won’t be received well, so even if Part II will be posted elsewhere it probably won’t appear on LessWrong. (ETA: Actually, Part II likely won’t be put here in any case, as it might start to justify meta-ethical theism, and many LessWrong users will see the conclusion, meta-ethical theism, and infer by backwards-chaining that the arguments must be wrong even before seriously considering them. I don’t wish to cause opprobrium on LessWrong, so Part II likely won’t show up here—but I do wish to note that my silence shouldn’t be taken as approval of such mind-killed epistemic habits. (The God question is, of course, extremely political.) That said, Part II might not get to God—I might try to structure the series such that God is introduced at the very beginning of Part III. Please note that Part I has nothing at all to do with God. )
Granted. I didn’t think it necessary because I don’t think Schmidhuber’s theory is a legitimate answer to the question, it’s just a step on the way to finding an answer. Also, Burfoot’s book doesn’t include the relevant aspect of Schmidhuber’s theory, which is the axiological aspect, i.e. the aspect pertaining to beauty and so on. A literature review of meta-ethics, on the other hand, would be more relevant, but wouldn’t be necessary for the modest nature of this post. Existent meta-ethics will start needing referencing in Part II and beyond, though it doesn’t look like Part II will show up on LessWrong.