cousin_it comments on Born rule or universal prior? - Less Wrong

7 Post author: cousin_it 29 June 2011 11:27PM

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

Comments (35)

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

Comment author: cousin_it 02 July 2011 03:13:17PM 1 point [-]

(Here, the log(n) is needed to specify how long the sequence of random bits is).

You don't always need log(n) bits to specify n. The K-complexity of n is enough. For example, if n=3^^^^3, then you can specify n using much fewer bits than log(n). I think this kills your debunking :-)

Comment author: AlephNeil 02 July 2011 07:44:05PM 0 points [-]

O(BB^-1) (or whatever it is) is still greater than O(1) though, and (as best I can reconstruct it) your argument relies on there being a constant penalty.

Comment author: cousin_it 04 July 2011 12:36:30PM *  2 points [-]

Yeah, kind of, but the situation still worries me. Should you expect the universe to switch away from the Born rule after you've observed 3^^^^3 perfectly fine random bits, just because the K-complexity of 3^^^^3 is small?