On Sun, Jun 27, 2021, 5:34 PM Bruce Kellett <bhkellet...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 28, 2021 at 12:08 AM Tomas Pales <litewav...@gmail.com> 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. 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.
