Incorrect comments on Getting Nearer - Less Wrong

11 Post author: Eliezer_Yudkowsky 17 January 2009 09:28AM

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

Article Navigation

Comments (23)
Tags: psychology self_deception

Comments (23)

Sort By: Old

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

Comment author: Incorrect 21 March 2012 01:29:06AM 0 points [-]

it is actually conditional for me on what has lower Kolmogorov complexity: our universe which eventually self organizes us, intelligent observers, or an universe which eventually self organize a single intelligence that fills all of it and proceeds to do stuff like 'imagining' universes and otherwise be bored.

This depends on how you define Kolmogorov complexity of universes. The Turing machine that simulates all other Turing machines is not the best explanation for all nontrivial universes if you require the explanation to be empirical.

Comment author: Dmytry 21 March 2012 01:36:08AM *  0 points [-]

Yes, of course. I do think that there will be a formalization of KC that's fairly language independent, though. Basically, KC is here as a form of Occam's razor.

Also, the comparison between those 2 universe rules may directly yield the complexity difference, e.g. removal of rule leading to god-making. In any case I don't think it'll be possible to make any progress on this until superintelligence, which won't need any of our insights. That is kind of depressing thought.

Comment author: [deleted] 21 March 2012 02:11:33AM 1 point [-]

Yes, of course. I do think that there will be a formalization of KC that's fairly language independent, though. Basically, KC is here as a form of Occam's razor.

Do you think its the correct form of Occam's razor? In other words, does Occam's razor properly take a unique form?

Powered by Reddit Powered by Reddit