= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Logos01 comments on I Stand by the Sequences - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (248)
No, it is exactly as complicated. As demonstrated by its utilization of exactly the same mathematics.
It is not without its own extra entities of equally enormously additive nature however; and even and those abnormal conclusions are as valid from the CI as is quantum immortality from MWI.
-- I speak as someone who rejects both.
Not all formalizations that give the same observed predictions have the same Kolmogorov complexity, and this is true even for much less rigorous notions of complexity. For example, consider a computer program that when given a positive integer n, outputs the nth prime number. One simple thing it could do is simply use trial division. But another could use some more complicated process, like say brute force searching for a generator of (Z/pZ)*.
In this case, the math being used is pretty similar, so the complexity shouldn't be that different. But that's a more subtle and weaker claim.
Is that true? I thought Kolmogorov complexity was "the length of the shortest program that produces the observations" - how can that not be a one place function of the observations?
Yes. In so far as the output is larger than the set of observations. Take MWI for example- the output includes all the parts of the wavebranch that we can't see. In contrast, Copenhagen only has outputs that we by and large do see. So the key issue here is that outputs and observable outputs aren't the same thing.
Ah, fair. So in this case, we are imagining a sequence of additional observations (from a privileged position we cannot occupy) to explain.
Sure. But MWI and CI use the same formulae. They take the same inputs and produce the same outputs.
Everything else is just that -- interpretation.
And those would be different calculations.
No, it's the same math.
The interpretation in this context can imply unobserved output. See the discussion with dlthomas below. Part of the issue is that the interpretation isn't separate from the math.
"Entities must not be replicated beyond necessity". Both interpretations violate this rule. The only question is which violates it more. And the answer to that seems to one purely of opinion.
So throwing out the extra stuff -- they're using exactly the same math.