Unknowns comments on Kevin T. Kelly's Ockham Efficiency Theorem - Less Wrong

30 Post author: Johnicholas 16 August 2010 04:46AM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (81)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: Unknowns 16 August 2010 10:40:19AM *  0 points [-]

Yes, "It is likely that there is some reason for the number" implies a low Kolmogorov complexity. But it seems to me that if you look at past cases where we have already discovered the truth, you may find that there were cases where there were indeed reasons, and therefore low K-complexity. If so that would give you an inductive reason to suspect that this will continue to hold; this argument would not be circular. In other words, as I've said previously, in part we learn by induction which type of razor is suitable.

Comment author: Oscar_Cunningham 18 August 2010 07:16:51PM 0 points [-]

But then you've got to justify induction, which is as hard as justifying Occam.

Comment author: Unknowns 18 August 2010 07:29:15PM 0 points [-]

I have a justification for induction too. I may post it at some point.

Comment author: khafra 19 August 2010 01:52:55PM 0 points [-]

Is this a "margin is too small to contain" type of thing? Because I would be very surprised if there were a philosophically airtight location where recursive justification hits bottom.

Comment author: Oscar_Cunningham 18 August 2010 07:53:27PM 0 points [-]

Cool.