Let me further clarify:

The problem with Bayesianism is that there is no precise definition of
'simplicity' and 'complexity' for finite strings, which is needed to
effectively apply the principle of Occam's razor.  To elaborate:

(a)  There is no measure of simplicity/complexity for finite strings
(b)  There is no way to justify why compressed descriptions of
theories should be favored (Occam's razor)

We then apply Schmidhuber's theory of beauty.  According to

"Schmidhuber's Beauty Postulate (1994-2006): Among several patterns
classified as "comparable" by some subjective observer, the
subjectively most beautiful is the one with the simplest (shortest)
description, given the observer's particular method for encoding and
memorizing it. See refs [1-5]"

Then, its clear that (a) and (b) are in fact being resolved via
aesthetic judgements.

On Sep 9, 6:09 pm, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On Sep 9, 9:04 am, Günther Greindl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Here is a pertinent paper, just published:
> > Unmasking the Truth Beneath the Beauty: Why the Supposed Aesthetic
> > Judgements Made in Science May Not Be Aesthetic at All
> > Cain S. Todd
> > International Studies in the Philosophy of Science, Volume 22, Issue 1
> > March 2008 , pages 61 - 79
> > DOI: 10.1080/02698590802280910
> > Cheers,
> > Günther
> If it comes down to an argument , between a computer scientist and a
> philosopher, never trust the philosopher.
> It's time for me to call in my big guns.... Jürgen 
> Schmidhuber
> Cheers
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at

Reply via email to