On Sunday, June 27, 2021 at 2:36:38 AM UTC+2 Bruce wrote: Much as I respect Russell, his book is not an authoritative source for > anything. It is all rampant speculation. > On the matter of the stability of laws and the connection with simplicity, > I refer you to the 'grue/bleen' paradox introduced by Nelson Goodman. That > shows that the idea of simplicity as an explanation for anything is > misplaced. >
Note that the relation between simplicity and frequency is not Russell's speculation but a fact following from Kolmogorov's definition of complexity: simpler objects are more frequent than more complex objects because the same simpler object is contained in less simple objects. This fact is then used in Solomonoff's theory of induction: "Solomonoff induction is an ideal answer to questions like "What probably comes next in the sequence 1, 1, 2, 3, 5, 8?" or "Given the last three years of visual data from this webcam, what will this robot probably see next?" or "Will the sun rise tomorrow?" Solomonoff induction requires infinite computing power, and is defined by taking every computable algorithm for giving a probability distribution over future data given past data, weighted by their algorithmic simplicity <https://arbital.com/p/Kolmogorov_complexity/>, and updating those weights by comparison to the actual data." https://arbital.com/p/solomonoff_induction -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/2a02a50b-bda5-4fa8-9a91-b26ae5c06fccn%40googlegroups.com.
