You seem to be confusing "language relative" with "non-mathematical." Kolmogorov Complexity is "language-relative," if I'm understanding you right; specifically, it's relative (if I'm using the terminology right?) to a Turing Machine. This was not relevant to Eliezer's point, so it was not addressed.

(Incidentally, this is a perfect example of you "hold{ing} views contrary to scientific consensus in specialized fields where {you} lack expert knowledge based on pure ratiocination," since Kolmogorov Complexity is "one of the fundamental concepts of theoretical computer science", you seemingly lack expert knowledge since you don't recognize these terms, and your argument seems to be based on pure ratiocination.)

When I read that line for the first time, I understood it. Between our two cases, the writing was the same, but the reader was different. Thus, the writing cannot be the sole cause of our different outcomes.

The philosophizing of inept, verbose writers like Yudkowsky can be safely dismissed based solely on their incompetence as writers. For a succinct defense of this contention, see my "Can bad writers be good thinkers? Part 1 of THE UNITY OF LANGUAGE AND THOUGHT" OR see the 3-part "Writing & Thought series" — all together, fewer than 3,000 words.