= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
NancyLebovitz comments on Kevin T. Kelly's Ockham Efficiency Theorem - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (81)
If there are a very large number of fundamental particles, it is likely that there is some reason for the number, rather than being a merely random number, and if so, then you would likely reach the truth quicker by using some version of Kolmogorov complexity, rather than counting the particles one by one as you discover them.
Could you expand on this?
The only reason I can think of is that the particles have various qualities, and we've got all the possible combinations.
I assume that there some range of numbers which suggest an underlying pattern-- it's vanishingly unlikely that there's a significance to the number of stars in the galaxy.
I think there was something in Gregory Bateson about this-- that there's a difference between a number that's part of a system (he was talking about biology, not physics) as distinct from "many".