byrnema comments on A note on the description complexity of physical theories - 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 (177)
"Therein lies the rub. Do we really want a definition of "complexity of physical theories" that tells apart theories making the same predictions? "
Yes.
"Evolution by natural selection occurs" and "God made the world and everything in it, but did so in such a way as to make it look exactly as if evolution by natural selection occured" make the same predictions in all situations.
You can do perfectly good science with either hypothesis, but the latter postulates an extra entity - it's a less useful way of thinking about things precisely because it's more complex. It adds an extra cognitive load.
Selecting theories by their Kolmogrov complexity is just another way of saying we're using Occam's Razor. If you have two theories with the same explanatory power and making the same predictions, then you want to use the simpler one - not because it's more likely to be 'true', but because it allows you to think more clearly.
I just wanted to make a comment here that the latter hypothesis is more complex because of the extra things that are packaged into the word "God".
"Something" making the world and everything in it and making it look like evolution isn't a hypothesis of higher complexity ... it's just the same hypothesis again, right? I feel like they're the same hypothesis to a large extent because the predictions are the same, and also because "something", "making" and "making it look like" are all vague enough to fill in with whatever is actually the case.