On Sun, Jun 27, 2021, 5:34 PM Bruce Kellett <[email protected]> wrote:
> 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? > There's is a short computer program that executes all other computer programs: https://youtu.be/T1Ogwa76yQo It's distribution will be of a type where shorter programs are exponentially more frequent the shorter the description is. This accounts for the law of parsimony (assuming we belong to such an ensemble). Jason > 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 > <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAFxXSLSmKpK2wuaGVBCBSCiX1yxuD1f-fWOPVy3SPw5Vh8Vnvw%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer> > . > -- 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/CA%2BBCJUg9u_3A7AGk_hTa3NZESG9koOPmJcv%3D9uGKTq9my50%3DZg%40mail.gmail.com.
