On 6/27/2021 4:13 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Sun, Jun 27, 2021, 6:03 PM Bruce Kellett <bhkellet...@gmail.com
<mailto:bhkellet...@gmail.com>> wrote:
On Mon, Jun 28, 2021 at 8:58 AM Jason Resch <jasonre...@gmail.com
<mailto:jasonre...@gmail.com>> wrote:
On Sun, Jun 27, 2021, 5:34 PM Bruce Kellett
<bhkellet...@gmail.com <mailto:bhkellet...@gmail.com>> wrote:
On Mon, Jun 28, 2021 at 12:08 AM Tomas Pales
<litewav...@gmail.com <mailto: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 <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).
As I said, that is known as begging the question.
Bruce
To offer a theory that gives an explanation/answer to some question is
how science progresses. The theory may be right or wrong.
It only becomes a logical fallacy when one says the predictions are
necessary true because the theory is necessarily true.
Otherwise Newton was begging the question when he offered a theory of
universal gravitation.
The proof is in the pudding though. Bruno's proposed the same theory,
but he's not been able to make any predictions...only retrodictions in
which he fits the interpretation of number theoretic theorems to
"observations" about consciousness.
Newton calculated the measured orbits of planets.
Brent
--
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/77aaf676-9fe3-e643-4ffb-24bc0cc07fff%40verizon.net.
