On Mon, Jun 28, 2021 at 12:08 AM Tomas Pales <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Sunday, June 27, 2021 at 2:29:38 PM UTC+2 Bruce wrote: > >> >> The problem with that is that it is dependent on the language in which >> you express things. The string 'amcjdhapihrib;f' is quite comples. But I >> can define Z = amcjdhapihrib;f', and Z is algorithmically much simpler. >> Kolmogorov complexity is a useful concept only if you compare things in the >> same language. And there is no unique language in which to describe nature. >> > > Complexity is a property of structure, so if we want to explore complexity > of real-world objects indirectly, that is, in representations of the > real-world objects rather than in the real-world objects themselves, we > must make sure that the representations preserve the structure and thus the > complexity of the real-world objects. > That's known as begging the question. > So there must be some systematic, isomorphic mapping between the > real-world objects and their representations - a common language for > describing (representing) the real world objects. It seems that one such > language could be binary strings of 0s and 1s, at least this approach has > been very successful in digital technology. > Digital technology is not fundamental physics. > Another way of isomorphic representation of the structure of real-world > objects that is even more similar to the structure of real-world objects is > set theory since real-world objects are collections of collections of > collections etc. > Is there a set that contains all sets? What is science a matter of then? >>> >> >> Maybe it is a matter of finding laws. And laws are not just >> empirical generalizations obtained by induction. >> > > Sure, but how do we know that our world has laws that will hold in the > future when it seems possible and even likely that they will not (because > there are many ways that the world could deviate from the past laws in the > future)? > The evidence points to the fact that the world is not just a random collection of objects. So there are not a large number of ways in which the dynamics could evolve into the future. Bruce -- 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/CAFxXSLSmKpK2wuaGVBCBSCiX1yxuD1f-fWOPVy3SPw5Vh8Vnvw%40mail.gmail.com.
