On 2020-09-03 20:32:PM, Ben Goertzel wrote:
Radical overhaul of my paper on the formal theory of simplicity (now saying a little more about pattern, multisimplicity, multipattern, and the underlying foundations of cognitive hierarchy and heterarchy and their synergy...) https://arxiv.org/abs/2004.05269 ... it's much nicer this time around
The paper addresses what to do about the issue of there not being any single completely satisfactory single metric of simplicity/complexity. It proposes a solution: use an array or such metrics and combine them using pareto optimality. I think that is basically correct. You are likely to have multiple measures of simplicity/complexity, and pareto optimality seems like a fairly reasonable approach to combining them. One criticism is: why frame the theory in terms of simpliciity? Everyone else seems to use complexity metrics. It is like describing your temperature metric as "coldness". In both cases, there's a lower bound, but no real upper bound. It makes sense for complex systems to score highly, and simple systems to have low scores. The "simplicity" framing suggests inverting this. It seems wrong to me. -- __________ |im |yler http://timtyler.org/ ------------------------------------------ Artificial General Intelligence List: AGI Permalink: https://agi.topicbox.com/groups/agi/T7f31810a817f8496-Mbc044b923e62fdd62054e10a Delivery options: https://agi.topicbox.com/groups/agi/subscription
