cousin_it 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: Dan_Moore 16 August 2010 02:37:39PM 4 points [-]

Kolmogorov complexity also depends on the description language used to create strings. If the language has a recursive feature, for example, this would assign lower complexity to members of the Fibonacci sequence.

So, part of the task of Science is to induce what Nature's description language is.

Comment author: cousin_it 16 August 2010 03:47:02PM 0 points [-]

I'm pretty sure Nature doesn't have one.

Comment author: JohannesDahlstrom 16 August 2010 04:55:31PM 3 points [-]
Comment author: Dan_Moore 16 August 2010 04:54:00PM 3 points [-]

In the game described by the OP, Nature must invent a law, which must be expressed in a language. So, in the game, there must be a description language.

As to whether (real life) Nature can be said to have a description language: I assess the validity of this concept in terms of its success or failure in explaining phenomena. I wouldn't be 'pretty sure' of any hypothesis unless it were tested.

Comment author: adsenanim 19 August 2010 06:47:49AM *  0 points [-]

So, in a true language the results of saying something could be equal to actions?

I'm not sure how to phrase this...

I think say and do: Heat + Air + Fuel and I get Fire?

Hmm...