You're looking at Less Wrong's discussion board. This includes all posts, including those that haven't been promoted to the front page yet. For more information, see About Less Wrong.

dlthomas comments on Bayes Slays Goodman's Grue - Less Wrong Discussion

0 Post author: potato 17 November 2011 10:45AM

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

Comments (120)

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

Comment author: dlthomas 17 November 2011 01:44:43PM 10 points [-]

And this is just hiding the complexity, not making it simpler. Complexity isn't a function of how many words you use, cf. "The lady down the street is a witch; she did it." If we are writing a program that emits actual features of reality, rather than socially defined labels, the simplest program for green is simpler than the simplest program for grue or bleen. That you can also produce more complex programs that give the same results (defining green in terms of bleen and grue is only one such example) is both trivially true and irrelevant.

Comment author: Manfred 17 November 2011 03:43:55PM *  2 points [-]

Agreed.

Comment author: potato 08 November 2015 09:24:10PM 1 point [-]

Wait, actually, I'd like to come back to this. What programming language are we using? If it's one where either grue is primitive, or one where there are primitives that make grue easier to write than green, then true seems simpler than green. How do we pick which language we use?