= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
solipsist comments on An additional problem with Solomonoff induction - Less Wrong Discussion
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 (51)
I agree! Is that a problem? I expect that program to be less than a few hundred bits long, so Solomonoff induction will zero in on the correct laws of physics with less than a few hundred bits* of evidence. That seems perfectly acceptable.
*a few hundred bits of evidence will take more than a few hundred bits of sensing data, unless the sensing data is incompressible.
Nope, the first one
You see, this is why I kind of don't even want to bother ever discussing it any more. Ohh, I expect this, I expect that... on what basis, none whatsoever. It's hundreds bits merely to locate the camera, for god's sake. Let's say I expect a god in 50 bits, for the sake of argument.
edit: and by the way, for the laws of physics as we know them - non discrete - an exact representation is not even possible.
Up to BusyBeaver(a few hundreds) bits of sensing data (edit: which is due to it being easy to set up codes that are identical until very many bits are outputted) .