Johnicholas comments on The prior of a hypothesis does not depend on its complexity - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (59)
Your example 2, "the correct theory of everything is the lexicographically least algorithm with K-complexity 3^^^^3", has the same problem as the "islam is true" example. K-complexity is uncomputable.
However, "the correct theory of everything is the lexicographically least algorithm in <some specific language such as lambda calculus> with length 3^^^^3" is computable - and the universal prior probability for it is low, but reasonable given the length of the sentence - it's not related to the magnitude of 3^^^^3.
Here at LessWrong, we're used to using "3^^^^3" as a way to point to a generic very big number, and certainly if you replaced "3^^^^3" with an explicit random number of similar magnitude, then the prior would be very low. But 3^^^^3 is different than most numbers of that size - it has a very short description.
If there was evidence suggesting that there was a very large constant somewhere in our physics, and someone showed that the last few digits of that constant matched the last few digits of 3^^^^3, then we would jump towards the hypothesis that in fact, the number is exactly 3^^^^3.