On Sunday, June 27, 2021 at 10:12:23 PM UTC+2 Brent wrote: > > > On 6/27/2021 5:18 AM, Tomas Pales wrote: > > No, atoms are more simple than ducks, and atoms are also more frequent > than ducks because there are atoms in every duck but there is no duck in an > atom. However, it seems that every object can be represented as a binary > string, which is a useful representation in computer science. > > > Actually that's doubtful. You're idealizing "object" into a class. A > specific duck or atom may require and infinite string to define it's > relation to the rest of the universe. But you've tried to pull a switch > from "being" to "represented"; a common move for those enamored of > language, description, computers,... >
I meant a structure-preserving, complexity-preserving representation, at least in principle. So the binary string would completely represent the structure of the real object. But there may be a problem with calculating probability if there is an infinite number of objects. For example, it may seem that there are more natural numbers than even numbers but actually they are both infinite numbers. I don't know how Solomonoff got around the problem with infinity. A supposition on the same order as nature has regularities. Remember > you're talking about "properties" within theories...not necessarily the > same as within objects. > I am talking about properties of objects - atoms, ducks, worlds... -- 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/d421464c-d548-4cf7-abc0-9b818858cce1n%40googlegroups.com.
